Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Animal Care Facility Appeal____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: 273 Council Meeting: 12/18/2017 Disposition: Resolution 14443 Agenda Item No: 7.a Meeting Date: December 18, 2017 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Paul Jensen (AMG) Community Development Director City Manager Approval: ______________ TOPIC: ANIMAL CARE FACILITY AT 629 LINDARO STREET SUBJECT: APPEAL (AP17-006) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 10, 2017, ACTION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP17-004) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PET GROOMING, DAYCARE AND BOARDING FACILITY (ANIMAL CARE FACILITY) LOCATED AT 629 LINDARO STREET. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The project site is located at 629 Lindaro Street. The existing development is an 8,400 sq. ft. building with double frontage parking access from both Lindaro Street and Mariposa Road. On July 6, 2017, a Use Permit application was filed requesting approval to allow pet grooming, day care and boarding (animal care facility). The Use Permit (UP17-018) application was approved by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) with conditions on August 23, 2017 and this decision was appealed by neighboring resident. On October 10, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action. The issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing were similar to those raised at the Zoning Administrator hearing, including: noise from barking dogs; odor from the facility; dogs off-leash; potential for parking problems; and potential for increase in rodents from outdoor storage. The Planning Commission determined that the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action had no merit and denied the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Use Permit. On October 17, 2017, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 10, 2017, action (Attachment 3). The basis for the appeal includes: 1) compatibility with residential uses; 2) concerns about noise; and 3) concern with removal animal waste. These issues were considered by both the Zoning Administrator (ZA) and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission concluded that the project proposal along with the conditions of approval included by the ZA addressed these issues and therefore the appeal has no merit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal (AP17-006) and upholding the Planning Commission’s action to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s August 23, 2017 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 decision to conditionally approve Use Permit (UP17-018) for an Animal Care Facility at 629 Lindaro Street. BACKGROUND: Project Description: The applicant, Emily Rannow, is requesting Use Permit (UP17-018) to allow an animal care facility within an existing 8,400 sq. ft. building. The facility will include 3,600 square feet of indoor play and activity area. The remaining 4,800 sq. ft. will be used for kenneling, office and reception area. Specifics of the project are as follows: • Operation: The facility offers overnight boarding of dogs and cats • Business hours for drop-off and pick-up will be as follows: Monday through Friday - 7:00am to 7:00pm Saturday - 8:00am to 5:00pm Sunday - 9:00am to 5:00pm • Number of animals on site - The applicant proposes to have a maximum of 200 animals on-site at once. This includes a mix of dogs and cats. • Number of employees - There will be a total of 12 employees, with at least 1 staff person on site at all times. • Parking - There are 15 parking spaces proposed within the front and rear parking lot areas. • Waste Management Plan – The applicant has submitted a waste management plan that proposes the following: All solid waste will be picked up and disposed of as solid waste; all liquid waste will be mopped, washed, or otherwise hosed down and disposed of as needed. • Play Activity areas - Play areas will be indoors within contained play/activity areas. No outdoor play area is proposed. • Noise – barking dogs will be addressed appropriately by either separating the pet from the group, the use of crates or other means to appropriately address and reduce barking related noise. The project plans and the project decryption from the applicant are included a Exhibits 1 and 3 of the Planning Commission Packet. Zoning Administrator Action: On August 23, 2017, the City of San Rafael Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a public hearing to consider a Use Permit request to allow an animal care facility within the existing 8,400 square foot building. Twelve (12) people attended the meeting; two were opposed to the project. Meeting minutes are included as Exhibit 4 of the Planning Commission Packet. In addition, the ZA disclosed that three (3) comment letters were provided via email. The issues that were identified by those in attendance and by email include the following: • Noise from barking dogs • Dogs off-leash • Parking problems on Mariposa • Odor from the facility • Potential for increase in rodents from outdoor storage of pet food. The applicant responded to concerns raised and identified ways that the business would operate to address these concerns. The property owner identified himself and stated that he would work with the tenant ongoing to assure issues are addressed. He also stated that he could be contacted if issues arise. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 After taking public testimony, hearing the applicant’s response, and responding to questions, the Zoning Administrator described project elements that proactively addressed some of the issues raised and identified additional requirements that could be incorporated into the project to address concerns. The Zoning Administrator subsequently approved the requested use permit with conditions of approval added to address those concerns noted. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action: On August 30, 2017, a timely appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action was filed by Charles Brown, a resident on Mariposa St. A copy of the appeal letter is included as Exhibit 5 of the Planning Commission Packet (link provided above). The points of the appeal along with staff responses are provided in the October 10, 2017, Report to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Action: On October 10, 2017, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s August 23, 2017, action. The Planning Commission discussed the issues raised including the concerns about noise, odor and disposal of solid waste, number of dogs proposed, hours of operation, and parking. However, the Planning Commission made no changes to the project or to conditions of approval required by the Zoning Administrator. After hearing staff’s presentation and taking public testimony, and discussing the issues raised, the Planning Commission determined that the appeal points made by the appellant had no merit. Therefore, on a vote of 5-1-1 (Commissioner Robertson dissenting and Commissioner Paul absent), the Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-07 (Attachment 2), denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s August 23, 2017 conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP17-018) for an animal care facility to allow a pet grooming, daycare and boarding facility. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Action: On October 17, 2017, the City received a timely appeal filed by Linda Rames, adjacent property owner. The appellant is not the same person who filed the original appeal, but a Mariposa St property owner. A copy of the appeal letter is included as Attachment 3. The points of the appeal along with staff responses are provided in the Analysis section of this Agenda Report. Staff’s analysis presented below demonstrates that the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action has no merit. ANALYSIS: Summary of Appeal (AP17-006) and Staff Responses The following is a list of appeal points submitted by appellant Linda Rames, followed by staff response. The complete appeal letter is included (Attachment 3). In addition, the attorney for the applicant, Terry Mason, has provided a letter dated November 30, 2017, with the applicant’s response to the appeal points (Attachment 6). Appeal Point 1 – Compatibility with residential uses The appellant notes that the project is not compatible with the residential uses on Mariposa Street and that the uses intended by the Lindaro Mixed Use District do not anticipate this type of use. Staff Response: Staff disagrees with this appeal point. The property is zoned LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use), which is a zoning designation that allows for a mix of uses. The district was created in 2004 and Section 14.06.010 identifies the specific purpose of this district is to provide opportunities for Light Industrial type uses. This section also includes a table with a list of used that are permitted without planning review and uses that are permissible with a conditional use permit review. Some uses listed as permitted are elevated to a conditional use permit review if SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 they are within a certain distance of a residential district. Animal Care facilities are one of the uses that can be permitted within this district with conditional use permit review without additional limitations within any distance from a residential neighborhood. Kennels, play areas or runs associated with any animal care facility within the LMU district cannot be located outdoors. Prior to being zoned LMU, the properties along Lindaro Street were zoned LI/O which is a light industrial/office designation. Therefore, this stretch of Lindaro St has historically been zoned and used for a variety of light industrial uses. Likewise, the properties on the other side of Mariposa Road have historically been zoned and used for high density residential uses. High density residential districts have traditionally been a transitional zoning designation between commercial or industrial zoning districts and in many cases these zoning district share a boundary line rather than being separated by a roadway. The conditional use permit review process allows the review authority to consider certain uses that are considered permissible but with greater degree of scrutiny so that certain performance standards can be confirmed and where necessary conditions of approval applied. This type of scrutiny occurred as part of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission review and included the following: The site is developed with a masonry building with roll-up doors on both the Lindaro Street and the Mariposa Road frontages. The proposed animal grooming facility will be located entirely within the building with no outdoor storage permitted. The primary facility entry is facing Lindaro Street. Properties on the Lindaro side of the building beyond the over 50-foot wide right-of-way are Zoned LMU. The existing building is located more than 100 feet from the nearest building to the east. As such the physical location, placement on the site and orientation of the primary entrance is compatible and relates to its surroundings. The properties on the Mariposa side of the building to the west are Zoned HR1.5 (High Density Residential). The existing structure is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest residential building to the west. While there are no performance standards outlined in the zoning code specific to animal care facilities, conditions of approval were included in the Zoning Administrator and subsequent Planning Commission decision to address concerns raised by neighbors located within the residential uses along Mariposa Road. These conditions of approval (COA) include the following: • This facility shall comply with all applicable requirements with the Noise Ordinance, as set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (COA #18). • All drop-off shall occur on-site. Dogs shall remain on leash during drop-off and pick-up (COA #6). • This approval does not authorize the use of Mariposa Road for walking. All animals shall be kept indoors within kennels or within the indoor play area. Any outdoor dog walking shall occur on Lindaro Street only (COA #7). • The facility shall be monitored by on-site staff person at all times (COA #8). • The applicant shall designate a contact person for noise or odor complaints or for emergency situations. The contact information shall be posted on-site and provided to all property owners, business owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. This flyer shall be distributed annually, and a copy also sent to the Planning Division. All noise related tenant complaints shall be directed to the property owner (COA #9). SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 • The property shall be kept clean and odor free. Food, pet crates, or other products associated with the facility shall not be stored outdoors or in parking lot at any time (COA #10). In addition, the applicant is required to comply with regulations established by the Marin County Animal Services (COA #13) and applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible agencies (COA #17), including regulations related to removal of waste, treatment of animals, and maintenance of the facility. Appeal Point 2 – Removal of Animal Waste The appellant notes that the project does not adequately describe how animal waste will be managed. Response: Staff disagrees with this appeal point. The applicant’s submittal packet describes a waste management plan along with an employee handbook that describes the current protocol for waste management at their existing facility. This includes the immediate removal of both solid and liquid waste. The applicant proposes to use the same method at the proposed facility, which includes the following: • Solid waste will be picked up immediately and disposed of in solid waste receptacles and area will be mopped up and sanitized; • Municipal garbage pick-up will be scheduled at least twice a week; and • Liquid waste will be cleaned up immediately and hosed down into sewer drains. Staff reached out to the Marin Humane Society (MHS) which is the agency that administers the Marin County Animal Services and Regulations and Permitting. MHS provided verbal confirmation that this method of waste removal is acceptable and consistent with waste removal protocol established by MHS. In addition, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 9.30.060 - Discharge of pollutants prohibited, the discharge of non-stormwater discharges to the city's storm drain system is prohibited. This includes amongst other things the discharge of animal waste. As such the project is prohibited from discharging animal waste into the City’s storm drain system. Appeal Point 3 -Noise The appellant states that the applicant did not provide sound proofing for the building. Response: Staff disagrees that this appeal point provides justification for overturning the Planning Commission’s action. Chapter 8.13 establishes noise limits for different types of uses within the City. This section states the “No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or by any other means, a noise level greater than” the noise limits established by the code. Sound level measurement are taken at the property line of the receiving property. For residential properties, the maximum noise levels shall not exceed the daytime and night time noise levels as follows: a. Daytime: 60 dBA intermittent 50 dBA constant b. Nighttime: 50 dBA intermittent 40 dBA constant SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 When complaints are filed, the City’s protocol is to take measurements at the property line using calibrated noise meters. All uses throughout the city are required to comply with these requirements and uses must implement necessary noise reduction measures to assure compliance. This may include soundproofing within the building and keeping doors and windows closed if necessary. Conditions of project approval requiring compliance with Chapter 8.13 were incorporated into the project approval as part of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission action as an additional method of notification to the applicant(COA #18). An additional condition of approval requires the applicant to designate a noise complaint coordinator (COA #9). The intent of this condition of approval is to provide a direct contact in hopes of achieving more immediate action by the business owner. However, as with other code violations, the neighboring property owners have a method for filing complaints through the City’s Code Enforcement process. Analysis of Use Permit Request Consistency San Rafael General Plan 2020: The project was evaluated for compliance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and found it to be consistent with the following applicable General Plan 2020 Policies and Programs: • Policy LU-23 (Land Use Map): The project site has a Land Use Designation of Lindaro Mixed Use. This designation allows a mix of uses including light industrial, vehicle repair, employee serving retail and live work. This Land Use designation is implemented by the LMU Zoning District designation which also allows a mix of uses. The use proposed by the applicant is categorized as an animal care facility and is permitted within the LMU Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. On August 23, 2017, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the request for Use Permit with conditions of approval added to address concerns raised by those attending the Zoning Administrator meeting. • Policy N-4 (Noise from New Nonresidential Development). General Plan Policy N-4 establishes limits for new potential noise sources. This policy establishes a maximum noise level of 60 dBA(Ldn) or no more than a 3 dBA (Ldn) increase, whichever is more restrictive . This policy is implemented by section 14.16.260 (Noise standards) of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, establishes maximum noise levels for residential properties. Conditions of project approval require compliance with the maximum noise limits established under the noise ordinance. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance At the October 10, 2017, meeting the Planning Commission concurred with the Zoning Administrator’s action and found the project consistent with the following applicable Zoning ordinance sections. Chapter 14.06.010 - Land Use Regulations The project site is located in the Lindaro Mixed Use (LMU) zoning district. Animal Care Facilities are a conditionally permitted uses in this district, subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. The proposed use is a pet grooming, daycare and boarding facility which is categorized as animal care facility and therefore permitted in this district subject to use permit review. There are no development standards identified for animal care facilities however no outdoor kenneling is permitted within the LMU district. All aspects of the use including kenneling, activity/play area and grooming, are proposed to be entirely within the building. There are no outdoor kennels or outdoor storage proposed. Upon submittal of the requested Use Permit application, the applicant’s proposal was routed to other City departments as well as the SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 Marin Humane Society. No issues were identified by these entities. The requested conditional use permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator on August 23, 2017, and that decision was upheld by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2017. Chapter 14.18 - Parking Chapter 14.18 establishes parking requirements for uses within the City. Section 14.18.240 allows for “grandfathering” of parking spaces and states that: • “No use of land lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title shall be considered nonconforming solely because of the lack of off-street parking, loading or bicycle facilities prescribed in this chapter.” And • “The number of existing required parking spaces may be reduced to achieve compliance with state or federal disabled access requirements. In such instances, properties shall not be considered nonconforming solely because of the lack of off-street parking prescribed by this chapter.” The existing building was constructed in the 1950’s and therefore existed prior to adoption of the current code. The use of the building has varied over time but has generally remained light industrial. The current parking ratio for light industrial is 1 space per 500 square feet or 17 spaces. Since there are 16 spaces currently existing (per City records), there is a total of 1 grandfathered space. However, the number of spaces can be further reduced to comply with disabled access requirements as noted above. One space will be converted to meet this requirement. As such the applicant’s parking obligation is 15 spaces, and therefore the number of spaces proposed by the applicant is adequate to determine compliance with the parking obligation. PARKING SPACES REQUIRED GRANDFATHERED PARKING Use Parking Ratio Area of space calculated Parking Spaces required Existing Spaces Grandfathered Spaces Proposed Light industrial 1/500 sq. ft. 8,400 sq. ft. 17 16 1 n/a Animal care 1/300 sq. ft. 4,800 sq. ft. (excludes indoor play/activity area which is typically provided outside) 16 16 1 15 (one space will be converted to ADA) Chapter 8.13 Noise Chapter 8.13 establishes noise limits for different types of uses within the City. This section states that “No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or by any other means, a noise level greater than” the noise limits established under by the code. Sound level measurement are normally taken at the property line of the receiving property. For residential properties, the maximum noise levels shall not exceed the daytime and night time noise levels as follows: a. Daytime: 60 dBA intermittent 50 dBA constant SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 b. Nighttime: 50 dBA intermittent 40 dBA constant All uses are required to comply with these requirements. In addition, conditions of project approval emphasizes the need for the applicant to comply with these noise limits. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Notice of all public hearings on the project, including this City Council meeting, has been conducted in accordance with the public review period and noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. All notices of public meeting or hearing on the project were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site and the representing neighborhood groups at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. In addition, notice of each expanded to include posting at the site at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. All public comments on the project received by prior to the Planning Commission hearing are included as part of the Planning Commission packet. Correspondence received subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing are included as Attachment 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. The project proposes to utilize an existing tenant space and therefore qualifies for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (a) (Existing Facilities) because it involves operation of an existing structure with no expansion of the existing building. FISCAL IMPACT: The project involves a new use within an existing building that is subject to a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. The City’s fee schedule requires the submittal of $2,476 as a flat application fee for Zoning Administrator level use permit applications. This level of permit is not a deposit based application and does not require the accounting of staff time. Based on the city’s current fee schedule, appeal of decision by residents or neighboring property owners requires the submittal of a flat fee by the appellant ($300 for the Planning Commission appeal and $350 for the City Council appeal). The total cost of processing this application, including appeal costs is $5,075 of which staff time is the sole component. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s October 10, 2017, action to conditionally approve the Use Permit (Staff recommendation); 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s action to conditionally approve the Use Permit with modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Grant the appeal and thereby overturn the Planning Commission’s October 10, 2017, conditional approval and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution; or 4. Continue the matter to address comments or additional information requested by the City Council. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal (AP17-006) and upholding the Planning Commission’s October 10, 2017 action conditionally approving a Use Permit to allow an Animal Care Facility at 629 Lindaro Street. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Resolution 2. Planning Commission Resolution 17-07 3. Appeal of Planning Commission from Linda Rames, filed October 17, 2017 4. City Council public notice and mailing list 5. Public Comment Letters received October 10, 2017 to present 6. Applicant Response to Appeal, from Terry Mason, ESQ, dated November 30, 2017 RESOLUTION NO. 14443 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP17-006) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 10, 2017 ACTION TO UPHOLD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S AUGUST 23, 2017 APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP17-018) TO ALLOW AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING DEVELOPED SITE AT 629 LINDARO STREET (APN 013-061-05) WHEREAS, the applicant, Emily Rannow, filed an application for a Use Permit (UP17 - 018) to allow an Animal Care Facility within an existing 8,400 square foot building to allow pet grooming, day care and boarding; and WHEREAS, following City staff review of the proposal, the Use Permit application was scheduled for review and action by the Zoning Administrator. On August 23, 2017, the Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing on the Use Permit application. The Zoning Administrator hearing was attended by 12 people that included the applicant, the applicant’s representatives, the property owner, and neighboring residents and employees. Two people provided public testimony expressing opposition to the proposal. Following public testimony, the Zoning Administrator: a) closed the public hearing; b) summarized the concerns expressed; and c) identified conditions of approval that would be appropriate for addressing concerns; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2017, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Action conditionally approving Use Permit - UP17-018. The approval action was a) based on facts and findings and supported by the response to comments and questions raised by the public; and b) subject to conditions of approvals included in the Notice of Action. This notice was sent to the applicant, the property owner and others expressing an interest in the project; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the City received a timely appeal of the Zoning Administrators action by Charles Brown. The points of the appeal are summarized in the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 10, 2017. WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review and consider the Appeal (AP17-004) to the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Use Permit (UP17-018), and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-07 (5-1- 1; Commissioner Robertson dissenting and Commissioner Paul absent) denying the Appeal and upholding Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Use Permit (UP17-018); and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission Action filed by Linda Rames; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2017, the City of San Rafael City Council held a duly- noticed public hearing to review and consider the Appeal (AP17-006), accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report by the Community Development Department Planning staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that points of the Appeal (AP17-006) cannot be supported for the following reasons) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby denies the Appeal (AP17-006) and upholds the Planning Commission’s action to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Use Permit (UP17-018) based on the following findings: A. Findings for Denial of Appeal (AP17-006) Appeal Point 1 – Compatibility with residential uses Whether the project is compatible with the residential uses on Mariposa Street and whether the uses intended by the Lindaro Mixed Use District anticipate animal care facilities as part of the mix of uses. The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated December 18, 2017, that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project is zoned LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use), which is a zoning designation that allows for a mix of uses. The district was created in 2004 and Section 14.06.010 identifies the specific purpose of this district is to provide opportunities for Industrial and Light Industrial uses. This section also includes a table with a list of used that are permitted without planning review and uses that are permissible with a conditional use permit review. In addition, some uses listed as permitted are elevated to a conditional use permit review if they are within a certain distance of a residential district. Animal Care Facilities is one of the uses that can be permitted within this district with Conditional Use Permit review without additional limitations if within any distance from a residential neighborhood. However, kennels, play areas, and dog runs associated with any animal care facility within the LMU district cannot be located outdoors. Prior to being zoned LMU, the properties along Lindaro Street were zoned LI/O which is a light industrial/office designation. Therefore, this stretch of Lindaro St has historically been zoned and used for a variety of light industrial uses. Likewise, the properties on the other side of Mariposa Road have historically been zoned and used for high density residential uses. High density residential districts have traditionally been a transitional zoning designation between commercial or industrial zoning districts and in many cases these zoning district share a boundary line rather than being separated by a roadway. The conditional use permit review process allows the review authority to consider certain uses that are considered permissible but with greater degree of scrutiny so that certain perf ormance standards can be confirmed and where necessary conditions of approval applied. This type of scrutiny occurred as part of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission review and included the following: The site is developed with a masonry building with roll-up doors on both the Lindaro Street and the Mariposa Road frontages. The proposed animal grooming facility will be located entirely within the building with no outdoor storage permitted. The primary facility entry is facing Lindaro Street. Properties on the Lindaro side of the building beyond the over 50-foot wide right-of-way are Zoned LMU. The existing building is located more than 100 feet from the nearest building to the east. As such the physical location, placement on the site and orientation of the primary entrance is compatible and relates to its surroundings. The properties on the Mariposa side of the building to the west are Zoned HR1.5 (High Density Residential). The existing structure is located approximately 100 feet to the nearest residential building to the west. While there are no performance standards outlined in the zoning code specific to animal care facilities, conditions of approval were included in the Zoning Administrator and subsequent Planning Commission decision to address concerns raised by neighbors located within the residential uses along Mariposa Road. These conditions of approval are incorporated herein as Conditions of Approval 6-10 and 18. In addition, the applicant is required to comply with reg ulations established by the Marin County Animal Services (COA #13) and applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible agencies (COA #17), including regulations related to removal of waste, treatment of animals, and maintenance of the facility. Appeal Point 2 – Removal of Animal Waste Whether the project adequately describes how animal waste will be managed. The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated December 18, 2017, that the project adequately describes how animal waste will be managed. The applicant’s submittal packet describes a waste management plan along with an employee handbook that describes the current protocol for waste management at their existing facility. This includes the immediate removal of both solid and liquid waste. The applicant proposes to use the same method at the proposed facility, which includes the following: • Solid waste will be picked immediately and disposed of in solid waste receptacles and area will be mopped up and sanitized; • Municipal garbage pick-up will be scheduled at least twice a week. • Liquid waste will be hosed down into sewer drains These methods are consistent with protocol established by the Marin Humane Society. In addition, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 9.30.060 - Discharge of pollutants prohibited, the discharge of non-stormwater discharges to the city's storm drain system is prohibited. This includes amongst other things the discharge of animal waste. As such the project is prohibited from discharging animal waste into the City’s storm drain system. Appeal Point 3 -Noise Whether the applicant will provide adequate sound proofing for the building. The City of San Rafael City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Agenda Report to the City Council dated December 18, 2017, that the project, as conditioned, adequately mitigates noise concerns. Chapter 8.13 establishes noise limits for different types of uses within the City and prohibits noise levels from any source to be exceeded. All uses are required to comply with these requirements and uses must implement necessary noise reduction measures to assure compliance. This may include soundproofing within the building and keeping doors and windows closed if necessary. Noise levels are measured at the property line of the receiving property. For properties abutting residential uses the noise levels will be required to maintained noise levels established for the residential district. Conditions of project approval requiring compliance with Chapter 8.13 were incorporated into the project approval as part of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission action as an additional method of notification to the applicant (COA #18). An additional condition of approval requires the applicant to designate a noise complaint coordinator (COA #9). The intent of this condition of approval is to provide a direct contact in hopes of achieving more immediate action by the business owner. However, as with other code violations, the neighboring property owners have a method for filing complaints through the City’s Code Enforcement process. B. Findings for Approval of Use Permit (UP17-018) 1. As proposed and conditioned, the use is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the objectives of the City Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use) Zoning District given that: a. Policy LU-23 (Land Use Map): The project site has a Land Use Designation of Lindaro Mixed Use. This designation allows a mix of uses including light industrial, vehicle repair, employee serving retail and live work. This Land Use designation is implemented by the LMU Zoning District designation, which also allows a mix of uses. The use proposed by the applicant is categorized as an animal care facility and is permitted within the LMU Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit subject to review by the Zoning Administrator. b. Policy N-4 (Noise from New Nonresidential Development). General Plan Policy N-4 establishes limits for new potential noise sources. This policy establishes a maximum noise level of 60 dBA(Ldn) or no more than a 3 dBA (Ldn) increase, whichever is more restrictive. This policy is implemented by section 14.16.260 (Noise standards) of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, establishes maximum noise levels for residential properties. Conditions of project approval require compliance with the maximum noise limits established under the noise ordinance. c. Chapter 14.06.010 - Land Use Regulations -The project site is located in the Lindaro Mixed Use (LMU) zoning district. Animal Care Facilities are a conditionally permitted uses in this district, subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. There are no development standards identified for animal care facilities however no outdoor kenneling is permitted within the LMU district. The proposed use is a pet grooming, daycare and boarding facility which is categorized as animal care facility and therefore permitted in this district. The used is proposed to be entirely within the building. There are no outdoor kennels or outdoor storage proposed. The proposed use was routed to other departments as well as the Marin Humane Society. No issues were identified. d. Chapter 8.13 establishes noise limits for different types of uses within the City. This section states the “No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or by any other means, a noise level greater than” the noise limits established under by the code. Sound level measurement are normally taken at the property line of the receiving property. For residential properties, the maximum noise levels shall not exceed the daytime and night time noise levels as follows. Daytime: 60 dBA intermittent 50 dBA constant Nighttime: 50 dBA intermittent 40 dBA constant All uses are required to comply with these requirements. In addition, conditions of project approval require the applicant to comply with these noise limits. 2. As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City given that: a. The project is a use that is permitted with a use permit. b. The proposed use was routed to other departments as well as the Marin Humane Society and no issues were identified. Based on follow-up discussion with representatives of the Marin Humane Society, the applicant will be required to obtain permits for the animal care facility and comply with all requirements imposed as part of that process. c. Notices were sent to neighboring property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. d. The project is subject to conditions of approval added to address neighborhood concerns related to noise (COA #8, #9, and #18), Dogs off leash (COA #6 and #7), Parking concerns (COA #4 and #5) and odor and rodent concerns (COA #9 and #10). e. The proposed animal care facility will be located entirely within the building with no outdoor storage permitted. f. The primary facility entry is facing Lindaro Street. On the Lindaro side of the building beyond the over 50-foot wide right-of-way are other properties zoned LMU. As such the physical location, placement on the site and orientation of the primary entrance is compatible and relates to its surroundings. 3. As proposed and conditioned, the use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance given that: a. The project is a use that is permitted within the LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use) Zoning District with a use permit. b. Conditions of project approval adequately address concerns raised by neighbors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings of fact related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), of the CEQA Guidelines; which exempts the use of existing buildings with no expansion. The project proposes to use an existing building that will require interior alterations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City of San Rafael City Council does hereby deny the Appeal (AP17-006) and upholds the Planning Commission’s October 10, 2017 action upholding the Zoning Administrator’s August 23, 2017 conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP17-018) subject to the following conditions: Use Permit (UP17-018) Conditions of Approval 1. This approval for a Use Permit for an animal care facility allows animal grooming and day care and boarding within an 8,400 square foot building. Day care and boarding shall be for a maximum of 200 dogs. The building techniques, materials, elevations, landscaping and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans approved by the Zoning Administrator on August 23, 2017, and upheld by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2017, and further upheld by the City Council on December 18, 2017, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. At least 3,600 square feet of interior area shall be reserved for Play/Activity Area. 3. The maximum area permitted for kenneling, office and reception area shall be no more than 4,800 square feet. 4. A total of 15 parking spaces shall be maintained on-site 5. The parking areas shall be restriped to comply with the minimum parking dimensions as required by the department of public works. 6. All drop-off shall occur on-site. Dogs shall remain on leash during drop-off and pick-up. 7. This approval does not authorize the use of Mariposa Road for walking. All animals shall be kept indoors within kennels or within the indoor play area. Any outdoor dog walking shall occur on Lindaro Street only. 8. The facility shall be monitored by an on-site staff person at all times. 9. The applicant shall designate a contact person for noise or odor complaints or for emergency situations. The contact information shall be posted on-site and provided to all property owners, business owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. This flyer shall be distributed annually, and a copy also sent to the Planning Division. All noise related tenant complaints shall be directed to the property owner. 10. The property shall be kept clean and odor free. Food, pet crates, or other products associated with the facility shall not be stored outdoors or in parking lot at any time. 11. These conditions of approval shall be included on first sheet of plans submitted for building permit. 12. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code and of the implementing zone classification of LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use). 13. This Use Permit (UP17-018) shall become null and void unless a valid license is issued by the Marin County Animal Services and any other required licensing prior to the expiration date of this approval. 14. This Use Permit does not approve any signs proposed for the project site. A separate sign permit and fee will be required for any signage for the business. 15. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator. 16. This Use Permit shall run with the land. This Use Permit shall become null and void if not vested within one (1) year from the date of approval, or no later than December 18, 2018, unless a time extension is granted before that date. Vesting shall include issuance of necessary building permits or commencement of business operations. 17. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible agencies. 18. This facility shall comply with all applicable requirements with the Noise Ordinance, as set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code 19. The applicant shall comply with Fire Department Standard Conditions of approval as noted in Memorandum dated July 17, 2017. 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 City Council of said City held on Monday, the 18th day of December, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ______________________________ ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 17-07 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP17-004) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S AUGUST23, 2017, APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP17-018) TO ALLOW AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING DEVELOPED SITE 629 LINDARO STREET (APN 013-061-05) WHEREAS, the applicant, Emily Rannow, filed an application for a Use Permit (UP17- 018) to allow an Animal Care Facility within an existing 8,400 square foot building to allow pet grooming, day care and boarding; and WHEREAS, following City staff review of the proposal, the Use Permit application was scheduled for review and action by the Zoning Administrator. On August 23,2017, the Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing on the Use Permit application. The Zoning Administrator-hearing was attended by 12 people that included the applicant, the applicant's representative'S, the property owner, and neighboring residents and employees . Two people provided public testimony expressing opposition to the proposal. Following public testimony, the Zoning Administrator: a) closed the public hearing; b) summarized the concerns expressed; and c) identified conditions of approval that would be appropriate for addressing concerns; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2017, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Action conditionally approving Use Permit (UP17-0 18). The approval action was based on: a) facts and findings and supp0l1ed by the response to comments and questions raised by the public; and b) subject to conditions of approvals included in the Notice of Action.' This notice was sent to the applicant, the property owner and others expressing an interest in the project; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the Zoning Administrators Action by Charles Brown. The points of the appeal are summarized in the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 10,2017. WHEREAS, on October 10,2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review and consider the Appeal (AP17-004) to the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Use Permit (UP17-018), and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Depar1ment; and WHEREAS, the project was deemed to be exempt from environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities); and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Depar1ment. The records of proceedings include the "Notice of Zoning Administrator Action" with attachments dated August 23,2017. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby denies the Appeal (AP17-004) and upholds the Zoning Administrator's August 23, 2017 approval of the Use Permit (UP17-018). The Planning Commission finds and determines that the points of the appeals cannot be supported for the following reasons: Findings for Denial of Appeal AP17-004 Appeal Point #1: That the notice of the Zoning Administrator Hearing was narrowly publicized because the Notice Poster was posted on Lindaro Street and not on Mariposa Street. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented . in the RepOli to the Planning Commission dated October 10, 2017. The Planning Commission finds that the notice of the Zoning Administrator hearing for 629 Lindaro was completed in accordance with the noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 (Zoning- Public Notice) of the San Rafael Municipal Code. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site, based on available. public records and was sent out on August 4, 2017, which is 19 days prior to the date of the meeting which is more than that 15 calendar days required by the code. In addition, the public notice was posted on site on Lindaro Street, and therefore, broadened beyond what is normally required for this type of project. Although certain occupants of the multi-tenant building did not receive a separate public notice, both the propeliy owners and property managers on file for that complex were notified. Finally, Pursuant to Section 14.22.100: No action, inaction or recommendation regarding any development by the zoning administrator or planning commission shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by any court by reason of error or omission pertaining to the notices, including the failure to give any notice required by this section Appeal Point #2: That the project is not compatible with the neighboring property and will be detrimental to the public welfare. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 10, 2017. The Planning Commission finds that the project is zoned Lindaro Mixed Use, which is a zoning designation that allows Animal Care facilities as one of the uses that can be permitted with Conditional Use permit review. The conditional use permit review process allows the review authority to consider certain uses that are considered permissible but with greater degree of scrutiny so that certain performance standards can be confirmed and where necessary conditions of approval applied. The site is developed with a masonry building with roll-up doors on both the Lindaro Street and the Mariposa Street frontages. The animal care facility will be located entirely within the building with no outdoor storage permitted. The primary facility entry is facing Lindaro Street. On the Lindaro side of the building beyond the over 50-foot wide right-of-way are other properties zoned LMU. While there are no performance standards outlined in the zoning code specific to animal care facilities, conditions of approval were included in the ZA decision to address neighborhood concerns regarding noise from barking dogs, dogs off-leash, parking on Mariposa, odor from the facility, and the potential for increase in rodents from outdoor storage. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the physical location, placement on the site and orientation of the primary entrance is compatible and relates to its surroundings and that 2 conditions of approval imposed by the Zoning Administrator decision adequately address neighborhood concerns (see Conditions of Approval #6-10 and # 18). Appeal Point #3: That noise will not be adequately addressed because it is difficult to control barking dogs. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the RepOli to the Planning Commission dated October 10, 2017. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant's submittal packet adequately outlines noise management methods to be used to address barking dogs. In addition, Zoning Administrator's added conditions of approval 8, 9, and 18, which require the applicant to designate a noise complaint coordinator, provide contact information of said coordinator to ~II property owners, business owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site , and requires compliance with all applicable requirements of the Noise Ordinance -Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, adequately address concerns related to noise. Appeal Point #4: That at least 16 people were not present at the Zoning Administrator Meeting due to lack of noticing and therefore were not able to vote. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 10, 2017. The Planning Commission finds that although only two (2) individuals opposing the project were present, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator was based on findings and the ability of the Zoning Administrator to address concerns presented prior to the hearing and during public testimony during the hearing . Based on the record, the Planning Commission finds that the combined list of concerns raised prior to the hearing and during public testimony include: Noise from barking dogs Dogs off-leash Parking related concerns on Mariposa Odor from the facility Potential for increase in rodents from outdoor storage of pet food. The Planning Commission finds that the Zoning Administrator adequately addressed the concerns by imposing conditions of approval to address noise (COA #8, #9, and # 18), Dogs off leash (COA #6 and #7), Parking concerns (COA #4 and #5) and odor and rodent concerns (COA #9 and # 10). The Planning Commission finds that no additional concerns were identified by the Appeal letter dated, August 30,2017. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit (UP 17-0 18) and reaffirms the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings for UP17-018 1. As proposed and conditioned, the use is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the objectives of the City Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use) Zoning District because: a. Policy LU-23 (Land Use Map): The project site has a Land Use Designation of Lindaro Mixed Use. This designation allows a mix of uses including light industrial, vehicle 3 repair, employee serving retail and live work. This Land Use designation is implemented by the LMU Zoning District designation, which also allows a mix of uses. The use proposed by the applicant is categorized as an animal care facility and is permitted within the LMU Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit subject to review by the Zoning Administrator. b. Policy N-4 (Noise from New Nonresidential Development). General Plan Policy N-4 establishes limits for new potential noise sources. This policy establishes a maximum noise level of 60 dBA(Ldn) or no more than a 3 dBA (Ldn) increase, whichever is more restrictive. This policy is implemented by section 14.16.260 (Noise standards) of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, establishes maximum noise levels for residential properties. Conditions of project approval require compliance with the maximum noise limits established under the noise ordinance. c. Chapter 14.06.010 -Land Use Regulations -The project site is located in the Lindaro Mixed Use (LMU) zoning district. Animal Care Facilities are a conditionally permitted uses in this district, subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. There are no development standards identified for animal care facilities however no outdoor kenneling is permitted within the LMU district. The proposed use is a pet grooming, daycare and boarding facility which is categorized as animal care facility and therefore permitted in this district. The used is proposed to be entirely within the building. There are no outdoor kennels or outdoor storage proposed. The proposed use was routed to other departments as well as the Marin Humane Society. No issues were identified. d. Chapter 8.13 establishes noise limits for different types of uses within the City. This section states the "No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or by any other means, a noise level greater than" the noise limits established under by the code. Sound level measurement are normally taken at the property line of the receiving property. For residential properties, the maximum noise levels shall not exceed the daytime and night time noise levels as follows. Daytime: 60 dBA intermittent 50 dBA constant Nighttime: 50 dBA intermittent 40 dBA constant All uses are required to comply with these requirements. In addition, conditions of project approval require the applicant to comply with these noise limits. 2. As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City because: a. The project is a use that is permitted with a use permit. b. The proposed use was routed to other departments as well as the Marin Humane Society and no issues were identified. c. Notices were sent to neighboring property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. d. The project is subject to conditions of approval added to address neighborhood concerns related to noise (COA #8, #9, and # 18), Dogs off leash (eOA #6 and #7), Parking concerns (eOA #4 and #5) and odor and rodent concerns (eOA #9 and # 1 0). e. The proposed animal care facility will be located entirely within the building with no outdoor storage permitted. f. The primary facility entry is facing Lindaro Street. On the Lindaro side of the building beyond the over 50-foot wide right-of-way are other properties zoned LMU. As such 4 the physical location, placement on the site and orientation of the primary entrance is compatible and relates to its surroundings. 3. As proposed and conditioned, the use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance because: a. The project is a use that is permitted within the LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use) Zoning District with a use permit. b. Conditions of project approval adequately address concerns raised be neighbors. Conditions of Approval for Use Permit UP 17 -018 1. This approval for a Use Permit for an animal care facility allows animal grooming and day care and boarding within an 8,400 square foot building. Day care and boarding shall be for a maximum of 200 dogs. The building techniques, materials, elevations, landscaping and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans approved by the Zoning Administrator on August 23, 2017, and upheld by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2017, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. At least 3,600 square feet of interior area shall be reserved for Play/Activity Area. 3. The maximum area permitted for kenneling, office and reception area shall be no more than 4,800 square feet. 4. A total of 15 parking spaces shall be maintained on-site 5. The parking areas shall be restriped to comply with the minimum parking dimensions as required by the department of public works. 6. All drop-off shall occur on-site. Dogs shall remain on leash during drop-off and pick-up. 7. This approval does not authorize the use of Mariposa Road for walking. All animals shall be kept indoors within kennels or within the indoor play area. Any outdoor dog walking shall occur on Lindaro Street only. 8. The facility shall be monitored by on-site staff person at all times. 9. The applicant shall designate a contact person for noise or odor complaints or for emergency situations. The contact information shall be posted on-site and provided to all property , owners, business owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. This flyer shall be distributed annually, and a copy also sent to the Planning Division. All noise related tenant complaints shall be directed to the property owner. 10. The property shall be kept clean and odor free. Food, pet crates, or other products associated with the facility shall not be stored outdoors or in parking lot at any time. 11. These conditions of approval shall be included on first sheet of plans submitted for building permit. 12. The applicant shall .comply with all applicable requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code and of the implementing zone classification ofLMU (Lindaro Mixed Use). 5 13 . This Us'e Permit (UPI7-018) shall become null and void unless a valid license is issued by the Marin County Animal Services and any other required licensing prior to the expiration date of this approval. 14. This Use Permit does not approve any signs proposed for the project site. A separate sign permit and fee will be required for any signage for the business. 15. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator. 16. This Use Permit shall run with the land. This Use Permit shall become null and void if not vested within one (1) year from the date of approval, or no later than October 10, 2018, unless a time extension is granted before that date. Vesting shall include issuance of necessary building permits or commencement of business operations. 17. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible agencies. 18. This facility shall comply with all applicable requirements with the Noise Ordinance, as set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code 19. The applicant shall comply with Fire Department Standard Conditions of approval as noted in Memorandum dated July 17,2017. The foregoing resolution was at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 10 th day of October 201 7. Moved by Commissioner Schoppert and seconded by Commissioner Loughran as follows: AYES: Commissioners Lubamersky, Loughran, Schoppert, Schaefer, Chair Davidson NOES: Commissioner Robertson ABSENT: Commissioner Paul ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: ~tl ~ Paul A . Jensen~ 6 381J:iO S.}tH318 AlIJ linda Rames 240 Morning Sun Mill Valley, CA 94941 October 17,2017 Re: Case 1# AP 17-004/UP 17-018 C, A cl-LIHcR. (f t 0 3t \ Members of the San Rafael City Council: This is a response to the staff report on the Tail Haven dog facility located at 629 lindaro St. and 20 Mariposa Rd. in San Rafael and is a second appeal to deny the permitting of this business. We, residents and owners of residential property on Mariposa Rd., do not believe this type of facility is suitable adjacent to a residential street. We are responding to Point 2 and Point 3 of the staff report to deny the first appeal and the Planning Commission decision to allow the facility. Point 2 While the staff may be able to argue some degree of compatibility to this usage on the lindaro St. side, there is certainly no compatibility on Mariposa Rd nor precedent to allow this type of use adjacent to residential housing. Since there is an address for the building at 20 Mariposa Rd, we feel that the people who live on Mariposa Rd. are in danger of wrongly losin~ their rights to a quiet and peaceful residential occupancy in their homes and certainly deserve serious consideration in the plans for this facility. Regarding odor from the warehouse, there is no provision for the temporary storage of solid waste until picked up. Animal waste attracts rodents which are already a problem in this area due to the creek and Wildcare. Regarding the hosing down of urine from the building, there is no explanation of where the urine ends up, possibly in the storm drains, which will cause an odor problem and other environmental issues. The previous tenant used the storm drains, which caused a terrible smell in the neighborhood that was not addressed swiftly. We disagree that the zoning designation of mixed use includes a commercial establishment as proposed by Tail Haven. As defined by the City of San Rafael, mixed use includes light industrial and live/work spaces, not a commercial enterprise. In particular, and unique to the businesses in this block on Lindaro, this operation will be open for business 24/7, which does not fit with the other businesses in the surrounding area. Point 3 In the Tail Haven plans, there is no provision for sound proofing the bUilding. This structure was built in the 1950's and is not sound proof. Individual dog crates or kennels are not sound proof. In a facility holding 200 dogs, it would be almost impossible to stop a chorus of barking dogs once they get started. Saying you are going to do this is just that, saying it. Designating a noise coordinator is a ridiculous response to the issue. Complaints along these lines need to be addressed to the police department and that is where they will go. As stated above, residents have a right to quiet and peaceful surroundings and this facility does not provide for the rights of the tenants and owners of property on Mariposa Rd. There are large windows and a metal roll-up door on the Mariposa side of the building. In order to maintain quiet in the neighborhood, these must always be closed. Is there a provision to require this? Additionally, there must be a review of the building to determine how the space will be cooled and ventilated and potential impact of noise and smells re-evaluated at such time. '~dtlt!~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 629 Lindaro (Tail Haven) -Appeal (AP17-006) of the Planning Commission's October· 10, 2017, action denying an appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of a Use Permit to allow an animal care facility. The applicant proposes a pet grooming, daycare, and boarding business within an existing building. APN: 013 -061-05; LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use) Zoning District ; Linda Rames, Appellant; Emily Rannow, Applicant/Garbarino Investments, Owner: File No .: AP17-006/AP17-004/UP17-018 . State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmental effects is required. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no environmental review will be completed. This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under 14 C;RR Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally-sensitive area .. further study may be required. MEETING DATEITIME/LOCATION: Monday, December 18,2017,7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Ali Giudice, Project Planner at (415) 458-3092 or Alicia.giudice@cityofsanrafael.org . You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and 8:30 c;l .m. to 1 :30 p.m. on Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m . on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael,org/meetings WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written correspondence by email to the address above, or by mail/hand delivery to the Communit~ Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901. At the above time and place, all written correspondence received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard . If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice , or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to , the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90 th day following the date of the Council's decision . (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094 .6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TOO) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of docllments are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para-transit is available by calling Whist/estop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 629 Lindaro (Tail Haven) -Appeal (AP17-006) of the Planning Commission's October 10,2017, action denying an appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of a Use Permit to allow an animal care facility. The applicant proposes a pet grooming, daycare , and boarding business within an existing building . APN : 013-061-05; LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use) Zoning District; Linda Rames, Appellant; Emily Rannow, Applicant/Garbarino Investments, Owner : File No.: AP17-006/AP17-004/UP17-018 . State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmental effects is required. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no environmental review will be completed. This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally-sensitive area, further study may be required. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, December 18, 2017, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Ali Giudice, Project Planner at (415) 458-3092 or Alicia.giudice@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a .m. to 4 :30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and 8 :30 a .m. to 1 :30 p.m. on Wednesday and Friday. You car also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http ://www.cityofsanrafael,org/meetings WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written correspondence by email to the address above, or by mail/hand delivery to the Communit~ Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901. At the above time and place, all written correspondence received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard . If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice , or in written correspondence delivered at , or prior to , the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date of the Council's decision . (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094 .6) - Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TOO) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para-transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. 11/29/2017 Legend Marin Cities "." Marin Cities Bay Waters c::::J Bay Waters Parcels /'../ Parcels Boat Docks Boat Docks ROW /'../ ROW Street Centerline Street Centerline Street Names Street Names ~~ Query Results ~ Results Buffer Layer Buffer Layer City of San Rafael 0-22()---:t:1~600-800----;:;OO 11 http ://gis.cityofsanrafael.org/sanrafael/fusion/widgetsIPrintiprintpage_ms.php?mapfile=C%3A%2FOSGeo4W%2Ftmp%2Fsess_5a1f0879a07ab%2FSanRafael .map&mapname=SanRafael&centerxy=59... 2/2 PROP 10 NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP4 013-061-20 38-44 Warner Ct Apts POBOX 551 BELVEDERE TIBURON CA 94920 013-071-39 Rafael Tree Service POBOX 9608 SAN RAFAEL CA 94912 013-071-44 SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL DISTRICl310 Nova Albion SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 013-061-15 10, 12 Warner Ct Apts. 1 SANSOME ST SUITE 15C SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 013-061-15 Occupant 10 WARNER CT APT A SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-50 GELLERT FRED JR /TR/ 1038 REDWOOD HWY FR MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-061-20 BHSE TRUST ETAL 11 GREENWOOD CT TIBURON CA 94920 013-071-07 NOGUEIRO PORFIRIO F & GEN 114 E STRAWBERRY DR MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-061-15 r Occupant 12 WARNER CT APT A SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-16 Occupant 14 WARNER CT APT A SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-56 SAN RAFAEL CITY 1400 5TH AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-11 PALETIO RENATO /TR/ & 1440 PHEASENT DR PETALUMA CA 94954 013-061-13 BUKI PABLO & 15 DUNFRIES TER SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-11 Occupant 15 MARIPOSA RD APT 1 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-11 Occupant 15 MARIPOSA RD APT2 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-11 Occupant 15 MARIPOSA RD APT 3 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-11 Occupant 15 MARIPOSA RD APT 4 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-11 Occupant 15 MARIPOSA RD APT 5 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-16 Occupant 16 WARNER CT APT A SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-02 Naughty Dawg, The 198 MISSION AVE #A SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-14 Occupant 2 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-05 Occupant 20 MARIPOSA RD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-05 Katadyn Desalination, LLC 20 MARIPOSA RD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-17 BLISS JAMES A /TR/ 20 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-17 20 Warner Court Apts 20 WARNER CT #B SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-44 Boys & Girls Clubs Of Marin 203 MARIA DR PETALUMA CA 94954 013-061-12 BUCKELEW COUMMUNITY He 2169 E FRANCISCO BLVD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-12 7 Mariposa Apts 2169 FRANCISCO BLVD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-04 Scandinavian Designs Inc 2250 S MCDOWELL EXT PETALUMA CA 94954 013-061-04 DREYER MARGARITA E /TR/ 2250 SO MCDOWELL PETALUMA CA 94954 013-061-03 GIRAUDO JOSEPH & 50% ETAL 2300 BRIDGEWAY SAUSALITO CA 94965 013-061-55 RAMES FAMILY TRUST 2005 E" 240 MORNING SUN AVE MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-061-55 61 Mariposa Rd Apts 240 MORNINGSUN AVE MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-061-16 RABB 2014 TRUST ETAL 25 MANZANITA AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-16 14-16 Warner Court Apts 25 MANZANITA AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-18 Occupant 26 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-05 GARBARINO INVESTMENTS L F 27 DUNFRIES TER SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-18 CHUNG CHAU MY 28 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-18 Occupant 28 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Sheri Henderson 285 WOODLAND AVE #2( SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Idealist Psychologist PC 285 WOODLAND AVE #2( SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 Occupant 285 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 289 Woodland Ave. Apartmen 289 WOODLAND AVE #3 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 Occupant 289 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 Occupant 289 WOODLAND AVE AP~ SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 Occupant 289 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 WALLACE ROBERT D 289 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 Occupant 289 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 Occupant 289 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-03 Occupant 289 WOODLAND AVE AP-SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-10 Occupant 29 MARIPOSA RD APT 1 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-10 Occupant 29 MARIPOSA RD APT 2 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-031-46 PacifiContract 2907 PO BOX SAN RAFAEL CA 94912 013-071-10 DELL OSSO GEOFFREY G TR 308 POPLAR ST MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-101-17 TRINITY LUTHERN CHURCH OF 333 WOODLAND AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-11 15 Mariposa Road Apartment! 336 BON AIR CTR #393 GREENBRAE CA 94904 013-061-19 FUENTES DINAH 34 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-13 Occupant 340 WOODLAND AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-13 Occupant 344 WOODLAND AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-49 615 L1NDARO LLC ·3555 TIMMONS LN STE 8 HOUSTON TX 77027 013-061-10 STERLING MICHAEL L /TR/ & 378 BUTIERFIELD RD SAN ANSELMO CA 94960 013-061-20 Occupant 38 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-20 Occupant 40 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-12 Marin Housing Authority 4020 Civic Center Drive San Rafael CA 94903-4173 013-061-20 Occupant 42 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-20 Occupant 44 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-101-02 HANSEN FOREAKER & COPPLE 5 GLEN DR MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-101-02 285 Woodland Avenue Apartn 5 GLEN DR MILL VALLEY CA 94941 013-061-09 JOHNSON MARIE A 1996 TRU~ 51 MARIPOSA RD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-14 ROTH ANDREW & LYNN K R0155 VENDOLA DR SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 013-061-14 Occupant . 6 WARNER CT SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-55 Occupant 61 MARIPOSA RD B SAN RAFAEL CA . 94901 013-061-49 Occupant 615 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-49 Occupant 615 L1NDARO ST A SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-07 Occupant 616 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-39 CAR Shop, Inc. 616 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-56 San Rafael Goldenaires 618 B ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-50 Occupant 619 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-50 Boot Coffee 619 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-40 Occupant 622 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-10 Occupant 626 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-11 Occupant 628 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-11 Alex's Dry Cleaning Valet 628 LlNDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-05 Occupant 629 LlNDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-04 Occupant 635 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 Martinez Boat Canvas 636 LlNDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 Stephani.e A. Bloesch, LMFT 636 LlNDARO ST #1 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 Occupant 636 LI N DARO ST STE 1 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 Occupant 636 LlNDARO ST STE 2 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 Occupant 636 L1NDARO ST STE 3 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 Mary Jeannine Curley 636 L1NDARO ST UNIT 1 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Occupant 637 LlNDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Northgate Acoustics, Inc 637 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 eTrac, Inc. 637 L1NDARO ST #100 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Janice Martino E A 637 L1NDARO ST #200 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Birdman, Inc. 637 L1NDARO ST #201 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Buzz Photo Booths 637 L1NDARO ST #201 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 LED Light Source, LLC 637 L1NDARO ST #201 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Mugsyclicks LLC 637 L1NDARO ST #203 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Slade Design 637 L1NDARO ST. #202 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-02 Occupant 647 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-02 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF C) 647 L1NDARO ST SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-03 Occupant 70 MARIPOSA RD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-54 WILDCARE 76 ALBERT PARK SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-50 Occupant 8 MARIPOSA RD SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-071-12 MAZZA TRUST 9 TRUMAN DR NOVATO CA 94947 013-071-45 MARIN SENIOR COORDINATIN 930 TAMALPAIS AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 013-061-15 RREI LLC ONE SANSOME STREET SAN FRA~ClSCO CA 94104 City of San Rafael CDD-Alicia Giudice 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94901 013-061-55 Linda Rames 240 MORNING SUN AVE MILL VALLEY CA 94941 Charles Brown 7 Mariposa Road #6 San Rafael CA 94901 Andy Hooke 7 Mariposa Road #10 SAN RAFAEL ca 94901 Kevin GI<;ldstone 7 Mariposa Road #8 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 Lucas Birge 7 Mariposa Road #5 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 Mel Judson 15 Mariposa Road #4 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 Eileen Stevens 15 Mariposa Road #1 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94901 Adrienne Kolis 29 Mariposa Road San Rafael CA 94901 Zoe and Louis Brouilet 61 Mariposa Road San Rafael CA 94901 Nate Birch 7 Mariposi3 Road #4 SAN RAFAEL ca 94901 Sharyn Baccei 51 Mariposa Road SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 David 7 Mariposa Road #3 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 Allyson Spence 29 Mariposa Road SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 Jake Wilson 61 Mariposa Road #B SAN FRANCISCO CA 94901 Edvi n Sa ntos 15 mariposa Road #3 San Rafael CA 94901 Jason Karp 7 Mariposa Road #2 San Rafael CA 94901 RICHARD S RIEDE EMAIL rr ed e@ rmm-Iaw com HAND DELIVERED RIEDE 0. MASON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 200 SAN RAFA EL, CALIFORNIA 9490 I TELEPHONE 14 I 5) 454 -9880 FACSIMILE 14 I 5) 454-695 I November 30 2017 Honorable Gary Phillips, Mayor Honorable Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor Kate Colin, Council Member John Gamblin, Council Member Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Council Member SAN RAFAEL CITY HALL 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 'fD) ~ © TERREL J , MASON EMA IL t mason@rmm-Iaw.com lnJ~ov 30 CI TY CLER K'S OFFICE Re: 629 Lindaro Street -Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approving Use Permit to Allow Animal Care Facility File No.: UP17-018 Dear Mayor Phillips and Members of the City Council: The undersigned represents the Applicant (and Respondent) Emily Ronnow and The Tail Haven Hotel & Day Lounge and the property owner, Garbarino Investments. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the appeal by Linda Rames ("Appellant") of the Planning Commission's denial of Charles Brown's appeal from the Zoning Administrator's hearing. Before addressing the Appellant's comments on "point 2 and 3 of the staff report" as contained in the Appellant's letter of October 17, 2017, in the interest of brevity, we will refer the Council to the Staff Report and Zoning Administrator's Minutes of August 23,2017. Those documents adequately and accurately set forth the project description, and the Applicant's materials are all part of the public record. We also refer the Council to the Planning Commission's meeting Minutes (October 10, 2017) demonstrating that the Commission Members diligently reviewed the Respondents' application and considered the opponents' points and concerns, and found by a 5-1 vote to deny the appeal and grant the Use Permit to allow the animal care facility subject to conditions of approval. The Commissioners noted that the subject property is located in the LMU-light industrial district, and despite the residential component, the proposed use is a RIEDE &. MASON Honorable Gary Phillips, Mayor Honorable Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor Kate Colin, Council Member John Gamblin, Council Member Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Council Member SAN RAFAEL CITY HALL November 30,2017 Page 2 legal and compliant use. The Commissioners also noted that some of the opponents' "evidence" was speculative as to noise and odor problems that might occur. On the other hand, there was evidence presented at the hearing (in person and by letters) from individuals who have actually visited the Applicant's facility in Lafayette, or are customers or neighbors of the Applicant's facility in Lafayette, who had not experienced any noise or odor problems emanating from that facility. Compatibility The Appellant raises an issue as to the compatibility of the proposed use in the residential component of the mixed industrial use. The Appellant makes a blanket statement that the Applicant's proposed use in the "light industrial" zoning district is not consistent with residential housing. However, the LMU mixed use district is, by definition, a mix of uses within the designated district, which includes light industrial, office, warehouse and residential usage. The proposed animal care facility is a use allowed within the Conditional Use Permit review, and therefore is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and the zoning ordinances. The proposed use (as an animal care facility) is a use that can be permitted on this subject site and location pursuant to a Use Permit. There are no performance standards under the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 14.17; however, Conditions of Approval were issued by the Zoning Administrator to address noise limits, and other issues such as hours of operation, property maintenance and odor control. The Planning Commission reviewed, considered and approved these conditions of approval. Moreover, the Zoning Administrator found, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the building is suitable for the specified purpose of an animal grooming/ dog daycare and boarding facility as the dogs will be contained entirely indoors. This last finding is very crucial to the noise issue, as discussed more fully below. The main thrust of the Appellant's argument is that she is concerned with what may happen, not what has happened. The Appellant raises a concern about potential noise and smell, and then bases a conclusion that Applicant's operation is not compatible with the residential component of the mixed use district based on this assumption. The Zoning Administrator issued conditions of approval to address these concerns as to noise, odor, parking, and property maintenance. The Planning Commission, by its denial of the appeal of the RIEDE & MASON Honorable Gary Phillips, Mayor Honorable Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor Kate Colin, Council Member John Gamblin, Council Member Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Council Member SAN RAFAEL CITY HALL November 30, 2017 Page 3 Zoning Administrator's decision, addressed each of those issues and found the conditions to be appropriate. Odor and Solid Waste Disposal The Appellant states that there was "no provision for temporary storage of solid waste until picked up". This statement is incorrect as Chapter 9 .19 of the San Rafael City Ordinance applies to this situation by providing that "animal waste" is included as a definition of "solid waste" or garbage (Section 9.19.030), and Chapter 9. 19 provides for procedures of storage receptacles for solid waste (Sections 9 .19.120 and 9.19.130). Section 9.19 .190 provides for collection of waste at regular intervals of at least once each week. Further, Section 9.19.190 provides that in the event solid waste results in "foul odors", such solid waste shall be collected "at such intervals as necessary for proper sanitation". Thus, there is already in place appropriate standards provided by the City ordinances that requires the Applicant to comply with solid waste storage. Liquid Waste Disposal The Appellant asserts another concern regarding the distribution of urine from the building and the possibility that urine would end up in storm drains causing odor problems and other environmental issues . Again, this is a speculative complaint; however, the answer again is found in the San Rafael Municipal Code, Chapter 9.12 (Offensive Waste and Growth), Sections 9.12.020 and 9 .12.030. Section 9 .12 .020 prohibits any person from discharging, dumping, placing or throwing into the San Rafael canal or any tidewater tributary or any body of water, garbage, sewage, refuse, offal, rubbish, or other decaying matter. Section. 9.12 .030 prohibits any owner or lessee of property to allow, permit or otherwise maintain or keep on property any type of debris, wreckage, waste, substance or materials "likely to attract or become gathering or breeding place for rodents, rats or mice", etc. Therefore, the Applicant's operation of business is subject to compliance with all of the City's ordinances. Sound and Noise The Appellant makes a statement, without any factual support or other objective evidence, that there is "no provision for soundproofing the building", RI EDE & MASON Honorable Gary Phillips, Mayor Honorable Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor Kate Colin, Council Member John Gamblin, Council Member Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Council Member SAN RAFAEL CITY HALL November 30, 2017 Page 4 and that individual dog crates or kennels are not sufficient or soundproof. It should be noted that in Respondent's original application, item "Y" under "Proposed Tenant Modifications" described the Applicant's proposal to provide sound and temperature-controlled spaces within the warehouse. Portable kennel units will be used internally within the warehouse to provide sound and temperature-controlled crate rooms for the boarding of the dogs overnight, and as needed, to ensure compliance with City code. The Applicant is subject to compliance with San Rafael Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.13. of the San Rafael Municipal Code, thereby providing a standard of performance and a remedy for neighbors if there is a violation. Further, the Zoning Administrator issued conditions of approval regarding posted notices for contact persons for noise complaints. The Conditions of Approval (No.9) provides nearby property owners with added protection in the unlikely event that they experience noise or odors emanating from the facility. Conditions of Approval (No.9) provides that the applicant shall designate a contact person for noise or odor complaints, and such contact information shall be posted on site and provided to all property owners, business owners and tenants within 300 feet of the site. Moreover, the Applicant provided existing "noise protocol management practices," as stipulated by current corporate and employee documents. Current protocols are as follows: "Nuisance or excessive barking is not allowed at The Tail Haven. If a guest is barking, they need to be responded to in the same fashion as we answer the phones -our goal is to answer our phones by the third ring, and it is our goal to respond to barking by the third bark. If a dog cannot be settled down, quieted or engages in repeated episodes of barking, they are to be removed from group play and secured in appropriate (sound-proofed) enclosure. If you need to remove a guest from group play for barking, a "BEHAVIOR REPORT" must be filled out and forwarded to the manager on duty. If guests accumulate multiple BEHAVIOR REPORTS, they may be barred from future services at The Tail Haven, or required to pay special handling fees." RIEDE &. MASON Honorable Gary Phillips, Mayor Honorable Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor Kate Colin, Council Member John Gamblin, Council Member Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Council Member SAN RAFAEL CITY HALL November 30, 2017 Page 5 The Commission then heard evidence from the Applicant and individuals who had visited or used the Applicant's Lafayette facility. It was noted by the Commission that Ms. Ronnow has successfully operated a dog daycare facility in Lafayette, California since 2014. The Lafayette facility is partially an outdoor facility. Despite having dogs outdoors, Ms. Ronnow has never received any complaints for dog barking. The Applicant submitted to the Commission a noise reference exhibit based upon published noise decibel ratings regarding certain activities and comparable events. The noise level analysis was an illustrative approach that attempted to demonstrate how, even under worse case scenarios, there will be no, or minimum, sound from dog barking heard on Mariposa Road -the center of which is approximately ninety-six (96) feet in distance from the closed facility. The maximum decibel levels projected by the Applicant's operation and use as a dog care facility will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (Ch. 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code). The Appellant provided no substantive evidence of the sound noise issue and speculated as to barking becoming a problem. The Appellant, and the opponents of the Applicant's application who spoke at the hearing, speculate as to the potential noise generated by the dogs to be kenneled and/ or visiting on a daily basis. The Commission discussed this issue and the majority of the Commissioners found that the City's noise ordinance requires compliance by the Applicant and provides an adequate remedy for the neighbors to file complaints if in fact noise exceeds ordinance levels. There is a procedural aspect that can be followed, and in the event the observable noise level is beyond what is allowed by the ordinance, the neighbors have remedies. As explained by staff, the procedure is as follows: initial complaints would be handled at the Planning Staff level; citations and code enforcement could follow should the noise complaints not be sufficiently handled at the staff level, and there would be a compliance notice and hearing depending on the severity and frequency of the noise. Ultimately, the Use Permit could be revoked if there is a finding of severe and frequent violations without remedial action by the Applicant. Accordingly, there is adequate procedures in place to protect the neighbors and their concerns. The Commission chose to adopt a position that noise concerns is really a "post-operational" issue that is subject to review, and the concern by the neighboring opponents was not supported by any substantive evidence and was speculation. RIEDE &. MASON Honorable Gary Phillips, Mayor Honorable Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor Kate Colin, Council Member John Gamblin, Council Member Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Council Member SAN RAFAEL CITY HALL November 30, 2017 Page 6 Windows and Roll-Up Doors and Ventilation Issues Although the Appellant raises an issue as to windows and roll-up doors and ventilation, the appeal does not state an articulated argument. Regardless of whether doors or windows are open or closed, the Applicant's use and operation is subject to the City's noise ordinance . The issue of ventilation will be addressed by the Building Department at such time as the Applicant moves forward with improvements plans to the building. The Applicant has the benefit of a well-qualified HVAC mechanical engineer (Richard Ronnow, the Applicant's father), who has inspected the building and provided information that was submitted to the Planning Department on or about July 7, 2017. Mr. Ronnow will act as a consultant should there be an issue raised by the Building Department regarding ventilation. (Attached for the Mayor and the Council's ready review is a Curriculum Vitae for Mr. Ronnow.) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant and Respondent respectfully requests the Mayor and the Council to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's (and Zoning Administrator's) approval of the Use Permit application with conditions. TJMjaea cc: Emily Ronnow Garbarino Investments Very truly yours, RIEDE & MASON ., Te(J;;~ Richard Ronnow, P.E. Senior HVAC Mechanical Engineer SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS 1320 Willow Pass Rd., Suite 500 Concord, CA 94520 Phone: (925) 405-4505 Fax: (925) 887-4474 Richard Ronnow has over 45 years of experience in both the mechanical engineering and mechanical contracting industries. His engineering experience includes the design of the mechanical systems for biopharmaceutical, semiconductor cleanrooms and the respective support facilities. Other design projects include a 2,200 inmate prison, vivarium facility renovations, automotive paint ovens with thermal incineration systems and heat recovery (250·F -100·F), hospital/medical facility renovations and laboratory facilities. He has accumulated a thorough knowledge of the design and construction of HVAC & special mechanical systems, occupied and unoccupied cGMP Warm Rooms, Cold Rooms & Freezers, air and hydronic system balancing, plumbing / fire protection systems, and field installation procedures. Project engineering responsibilities typically include mechanical systems design, calculations, preparation of design development / construction drawings, specifications, equipment procurement packages, construction support, site inspection, system startup and commissioning support. EDUCATION B.S., 1967, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Engineering, California Polytechnic State University PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE VERSA Engineering & Technology 2011 -Present Senior Mechanical Engineer / Project Engineer • BioMarin UF Skid Prepared construction documents for the process drain modification in support of the replacement of the UF Skid. • Audentes CS-1 Facility Finalized the Conceptual Design Study and continued on to the development of the HVAC Construction documents. The project required modifications to the existing GMP and Non-GPM HVAC systems in support of reclassifing and modifying the architectural layout for the GMP / Non-GMP spaces. The project was on a fast track schedule which required close coordination with the site contractors. • Expression Systems Conceptual Design Performed a Conceptual Design Study for a proposed expansion of the existing facility to support GMP manufacturing. The study primarily addressed modifications to the Mechanical and Plumbing systems. The architectural layout was initially developed by the client and was later modified to better support the GMP manufacturing process. The project was put on hold upon completion of the Conceptual Design Study and Construction Estimate. • Genentech Vacaville B3 QCLW PI Phase Performed the evaluation of B3 Warehouse Hazardous Materials Sampling and Storage areas for future storage requirements. The sampling booths were to be eliminated and the Flammable, Acid and Toxic/Caustic storage areas increased or decreased as required. The addition of new QC storage and testing in another area of the B3 warehouse was also considered. The mechanical system impacts were reviewed and summarized in support of these changes and the PI Phase Construction Estimate. Richard Rannow, P.E. RESUME page 2 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Genentech Vacaville 83 Actemera IV Freezer PI Phase Performed the evaluation of mUltiple - 55°C (-67"F) Freezer storage options. The options were based on mUltiple stand alone vertical freezers or a new building with a builtup refrigeration system . The analysis was based on current ODP/GWP approved refrigerants which included both flammable and toxic materials. Building Code restrictions for the storage and distribution of these refrigerants within occupied spaces were also addressed . The mechanical system impacts were reviewed and summarized in support of these changes and the PI Phase Construction Estimate . • Genentech SSF 87 CPMF Fill Line #1 & Vial Processing Equipment Upgrade -Peer Review. Perform a Peer Review of the construction design documents developed by a third party for the HVAC Modifications, Air & Pressurization Balancing and System Startup. The existing Fill Line #1, Vial Washer and Depyrogenation Tunnel equipment was originally designed for a higher thruput than currently anticipated . The Operational States for the (N) equipment is different than the existing thereby creating a different set of dynamic balancing issues. Modifi cat ions to the (E) HVAC design is required to insure the system will perform in a satisfactory manner and all pressurization cascades are maintained. Obtaining accurate information from the equipment manufacturer is difficult especially where is relates to the dynamic flow rates. These equipment upgrades need to be made without impacti ng the remainder of the GMP Facility. • Merck -Laboratory Renovations & (N) LN2 Freezers Provided Mechanical Design and Construction Documentation supporting 2 separate Lab Renovations. One area included the consolidation of the facility existing LN2 Freezers into a single space with provisions for additional new freezers. Asphyxiant calculations were performed to support the HVAC and Exhaust design modifications. • Genentech Vacaville Seed Lab Design. Conceptual and Detailed Mechanical Design for a very difficult Seed Lab installation. The Mechanical Room was located in the middle of Senior Manager offices and required the HVAC mechanical equipment for a 5,000 CFM GMP air handling system to support the clean room and related infrastructures for the lab . Additional constraints were the area had to remain clean 24/7 and the noise levels had to remain less than 40 dBA. • Genentech Vaca 83 Sampling Airlocks Design. Developed the project mechanical/plumbing and fire protection construction documents for the selected layout. The project required a phased design approach with minimum Shutdown Windows for the critical systems. • Genentech Vaca 83 Sampling Airlocks Feasibility Study. Performed a study of the existing GMP Product Sampling / Wipedown Booths with regards to adding personnel airlocks . Worked with the Architectural Planner to identify and coordinate the existing Mechanical/Plumbing & Fire Protection systems with the 2 proposed alternate layouts. The study needed to address a phased construction schedule to insure 2 of the 3 existing Booths remained operational at all times. The Sampling Booths support the sampling of the raw materials received for product manufacturing at the Vacaville Bulk Manufacturing Site and other Roche Facilities. • Genentech SSF 87 CPMF Capping 1 & 2 Equipment Upgrade. The existing cappers were replaced with (N) High Speed Capping Equipment. The (N) cappers have a RAB enclosure with recirculated HEPA filtered air. Provided Mechanical Design and Construction Documentation supporting the (N) capping equipment. Reviewed the existing HVAC system serving the Capping Room and included design modifications where needed to maintain proper system operation wirh a significant decrease in airflow to the Capping rooms. \[~JA ENGINEElUNG I\. TECHNOLOGY Richard Ronnow, P.E. RESUME page 3 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Genentech SSF B7 CPMF HVAC-BAS Project. This project incorporates the addition of VFD's to the existing AHU supply and return fans, a total upgrades of the BAS system (Front end) serving the CPMF Suite plus the HVAC system improvements and modifications. The project will be completed in two primary phases which will be coordinated with the facility shutdowns. Richard will manage the mechanical engineering efforts and function as the Lead Mechanical Engineer. He will be providing mechanical engineering design for replacing the 19 (E) Bladder Dampers with Manual Dampers and Bypass Air Terminal Boxes, installation of 19 (N) Airflow Stations for interim airflow monitoring prior to the Bladder Damper replacement, minor modifications to HVAC System, modification to the Door Seals, adding a (N) Passage Exhaust Fan and confirming the Vial Washer and Depyro Tunnel fans (Exhaust & Makeup Air) operate continuously. The project will also also included re balancing the HVAC System, and modification to the BAS control logic for the (N) HVAC control points and Commissioning / Start-up Support • Genentech SSF B7 CPMF Vial Inspection (Black Box room) HVAC System Conceptual Engineering Study. Performed a study of the HVAC system serving the "Black Box" undeveloped room. This space was left unfinished and without HVAC when the CPMF Suite was originally designed and constructed in 2000-2001. The Clients intent was to develop the space into a Vial Inspection Space in suport of the CPMF Fill Lines. The scope was to do a detailed review of the existing HVAC System and to provide options for system improvements to support the new Unclassified, GMP Space. • Genentech SSF B7 CPMF HVAC System Engineering Study. Performed an overall study of the CPMF HVAC system. The scope was to do a detailed review of the existing HVAC System and to provide options for system improvements. The facility has experienced a large number of high / low pressurization & flow reversal alarms over the years of operation. Also the operation of the Vial Processing equipment (Vial Washer and Depyrogenation Tunnel) has never been successfully integrated with the HVAC system operation. The study identified several issues that have contributed to the pressurization alarms and the operation of the HVAC system. The engineering study is the basis for the current B7 CPMF HVAC-BAS Project. • Skanska / Genentech SSF Chilled Water Distribution Study. The South San Francisco campus has a central plant which serves multiple buildings and is inefficient in providing chilled water services to the critical operations of the individual facilities which house R&D laboratories, processing and packaging operations, Quality Control laboratories, offices, conference rooms, a cafeteria and warehouse storage facility. As a Senior Mechanical Engineer, he worked with a team of engineers to evaluate each of the individual facilities and worked with the building operators to document existing operations and overall utility usage. The scope includes a detailed study of the chiller distribution system, the central plant, the chilled water demand in each of the buildings. Developed an overall PFD of the chilled water generation and distribution to Buildings 3, 7, 8,51 and the new Data Pods. Assisted in the development of the system calculations, review of the energy analysis and development of the report / attachments. The final report will offer three options to optimize the central plant operations. All options offered will result in energy savings and optimize the entire central plant and chilled water distribution Fluor, South San Francisco, CA 2002 -2009 Senior Mechanical Engineer I Project Engineer • Genentech, Buildings 3 & 7 Renovations, SSF. Mechanical lead for the Buildings 3 & 7 cGMP and Lab Renovations. ~ ZiA ENGIIlEERING & TECHNOLOGY Richard Ronnow, P.E. RESUME page 4 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Amgen AFR Bulk Manufacturing Expansion Project, Fremont, Ca. Provided Mechanical Construct ion, Startup and System Commissioning Support for the HVAC Systems and Cold Room. • Amgen AFR Bulk Manufacturing Expansion Project, Fremont, Ca. Mechanical Lead for the Buildings 3 and 3A HVAC design. The B3 renovations involve modifications to the existing cGMP HVAC ductwork and air handling units. The design changes required close coordination with the existing site conditions, potential impact to the other disciplines and construction phasing to insure the existing facility and support systems will remain in operation throughout the construction period. The Building 3A design is new construction however some components of the build i ng needed to be completed early to support the B3 construction . • 1M Flash Technologies, Building 10, 20 & 85 Renovations, Lehi, Utah. Mechanical Lead for the SSF Design Team . The Renovations to Buildings 10, 20 and 85 include developing the HVAC ductwork, mechanical pip i ng, equipment selection, plumbing and fire protection for the areas of the building being developed. The design involved using existing equipment, materials and installed systems where possible. • Bristol-Myers Squibb, Building G 1.2 Lab Renovations, Lawrenceville, NJ. Mechanical Engineering overview of the development of the HVAC design. Performed engineering assistance with the development of the HVAC Load Calculations and the equipment schedules. • Bristol-Myers Squibb, Building 6 GPM Upgrade, Humacao, Puerto Rico. Mechanical Engineering overview of the development of the HVAC Airflow Diagrams and Control. • Chiron, TFPI-VMF & VPU Building Renovation Conceptual Engineering, Vacaville. Mechanical Lead for the expansion and upgrades in the VMF & VPU Buildings . Expansion and addition to the existing building Utilities and HVAC systems to support the renovations to the GPM & Non GPM areas. Expanded the Plant Steam Generation and added a New Process Chiller. • Chiron, CMF Building CIP Modifications Conceptual/ Preliminary Engineering, Emeryville. Mechanical Lead for the addition of two new CIP skids in the CMF Building. Identify utility / HVAC impacts and develop project scope documents. • Chi ron, CMF Building Fill Line Modifications, Emeryville. Reviewed the Mechanical Design Build Contractors Drawings, Specifications and Calculations for conformance with cGMP cr iteria. • Genentech, CCP2 Buildings 2,3,7 & 7A Construction Support, Vacaville . Worked w ith the Greenville Office and the Site Construction Team on the coordination of the Design Build Environmental Cold Storage Room / Freezer Contractor and the Building 3 Utilities. Rewrote the HVAC Systems Air Balance, Hydronic Water Balance and Commissioning Specifications to coordinate with the Site Construction Schedule and project requirements. • Genentech, CCP2 Buildings 2, 3, 5, 7 & 7A Detailed Engineering Design, Vacaville. Mechanical lead and Mechanical Engineer of Record for the SSF HVAC Design Team . Continued development of the new and existing drawings to further define and coordinate the HVAC scope of work. Continued coordinated with the Greenville office on the development of the construction specifications. Continued coordination with the Greenville Estimating team to maintain the 10% Construction Estimate. Building 5 work put on Hold prior to Issue for Perm it / Issue for Construction. \iH "A EHGIN1fIiIHG r. TlCliNOlOGY Richard Ronnow, P.E. RESUME page 5 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Genentech, CCP2 Buildings 2, 3, 5, 7 & 7A Preliminary Engineering Design, Vacaville. Mechanical lead for the SSF HVAC Design Team. Generated new drawings and modified existing drawings to define the HVAC scope of work. Coordinated with the Greenville office on the development of the construction specifications. Coordinated with the Greenville Estimating team to develop the 10% Construction Estimate. • Genentech, Building 3 Master Plan Study, SSF. Mechanical lead for the Genentech SSF Building 3 Master Plan . The Study included a survey of the existing HVAC systems serving the Building 3 complex and developing matrices for equipment upgrade / replacement. The matrices were keyed to separate future process options. • Genentech, Bulk Manufacturing Facility, Project ITHACA, Porrino Spain . Mechanical Lead for the Bulk Manufacturing Facility Project ITHACA, HVAC Detailed Design Phase, Construction Supervision and HVAC Startup. • Genentech, Bulk Manufacturing Facility, Porrino Spain. Mechanical Lead for the Bulk Manufacturing Facility Phase III, HVAC Conceptual & Preliminary Design Phases. • Genentech, Building 9 Weigh / Dispense Upgrade Project, SSF. Reviewed the HVAC design for the renovation / upgrade of the new / existing HVAC systems. • Genentech, Building 7 Early Clinical Manufacturing Pilot Plant Study, SSF. Assessed the HVAC, Plumbing and Fire Protection impacts to New & Existing Systems associated with the renovations to the existing Building 7 Pilot Plant systems. Developed the HVAC, Plumbing and Fire Protection Scopes for the study. • Genentech, Design Guidelines, SSF Corporate. Developed the Corporate Guidelines for the HVAC, Plumbing and Fire Protection systems serving Administrative Office Buildings and Manufacturing Facilities. • Genentech, Building 8 Area 3 Filling Line Study, SSF. Assessed the HVAC impacts to New & Existing Systems associated with the Filling Line Options. Developed the HVAC Scope for the study. • Genentech, Building 6 Fermentation Facility, SSF. Performed Mechan ical Commissioning for the HVAC Systems and the Environmental Cold / Warm Rooms. • Chiron, CMF Building Fermentation Study, Emeryville. Assessed the HVAC impacts to New & Existing Systems associated with the Fermentation line modifications. Developed the HVAC Scope for the study. Richard Ronnow, P.E. RESUME page 6 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • CellTrion, Large Scale Manufacturing Facility, Incheon, South Korea, Mechanical Lead for the LSM Facility HVAC Conceptual & Preliminary Design Phases. Provided 3 weeks HVAC Engineering overview of the Daewoo Detailed Design in Seoul, South Korea . The Conceptual phase included calculations and scope definition for the site Process, Warehouse, laboratory/Admin and Central Utility Buildings including the interconnecting enclosed Spine. The Preliminary Design includes Area Classification Drawings, Airflow Diagrams, Plan Drawings, Equipment Schedules, Sections, Elevations, partial Details, Preliminary Specifications and updated utility/equipment calculations for the Process and Warehouse (Weigh / Dispense) Buildings. The design includes 11 Air Handling Units, 2 Make-up Air Units and assorted Fan Coil Units & exhaust systems. The area classifications include ISO-5 (CI-100) operations within Bio- Safety Cabinets, ISO-7 (eL-lOK), ISO-8 (CI-100K) and Unclassified Support Spaces. The HVAC system is designed for phased expansion. The Process Building includes 38,050 Sq Ft of Phase -1 process and support spaces with 43,200 Sq Ft of Clean Utility and Mechanical space. The Warehouse Building includes 4615 Sq Ft of Weigh / Dispense space, 7200 Sq Ft of High Bay Ambient storage, High Bay Cold Room & Freezer and warehouse support spaces. Total Warehouse area 41,000 Sq Ft. • VaxGen, VCI Launch Facility, South San Francisco, Mechanical Engineer of Record for the VCI launch Facility HVAC design . The design includes a single pass HVAC system serving the Inocula , Media Filtration, Fermentation, Harvest, Initial Purification, Final Purification, Solutions Prep, Return Equipment, Equipment Wash, Tank Wash, Component Prep, Clean Equipment, Process Hallway, Air locks, Clean Equipment, Ambient Storage, Sampling and a Cold Room. The area classifications include ISO-5 (CI-100) operations within Bio-Safety Cabinets, ISO-7 (Cl-10K), ISO -8 (CI-100K) and Unclassified Support Spaces. The HVAC system is designed for phased expansion. Jacobs, South San Francisco 1997 -2002 • Genentech Project COOL GENES, Vacaville Building 3 Freezer and Vestibule. Provided engineering support for the Genentech Vacaville Building 3 freezer and vestibule. Reviewed the project specifications and the contractor's submittal documentation. Also assisted the contractor with the preparation of the sequence of operations, instrument list, and the site acceptance test documentation. • Genentech Project VERONA, Vacaville Building 5 Laboratory Renovation. Mechanical lead for Project VERONA at the Vacaville laboratory Building. The Building-5 laboratory Renovation included the partial remodel of the existing second floor laboratory spaces plus the conversion of 1900 Sq. Ft. of first floor office space to laboratory usage. The existing Warm Room was converted to a Cold Room. The design includes modifications to the existing HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection systems within Building 5 to support the expansion of the laboratory capacity. • Genentech, SSF Building 3A Media Prep Renovation Project. Mechanical lead for the Genentech SSF Building 3A Media Prep renovation project, preliminary and detailed design phases. The mechanical design included modifications to the existing lOOK HVAC systems to support the removal and replacement of the media tanks. One lOOK air handling unit was replaced and the weigh/dispense slot modified and relocated . The utility piping design includes modifications to the refrigerated and heating hot water distribution system, plumb i ng potable hot and cold water, process waste and vent, and the fire protection sprinkler piping. Richard Ronnow, P.E. RESUME page 7 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Genentech, SSF Building 7 Clinical Parenteral Manufacturing Facility (CPMF). Mechanical engineer of record for the Genentech SSF Building 7 clinical parenteral manufacturing facility fill/finish, detailed design phase. A des ign -build team was assembled to start the contractor's coordination drawings and complete the detailed design documents. Responsibilities include maintenance of the project AFDs, HVAC calculations, and equipment schedules . Mechanical engineering overview and input to the design build team during the development of the construction documents was also included. Provided construction support including submittal review, RFI response, construction inspection, and AFD walkdown. • Genentech, SSF Building 7 Clinical Parenteral Manufacturing Facility (CPMF). Mechanical lead for the Genentech SSF Building 7 clinical parentera l manufacturing facility fill/fi nish, preliminary design phase. The mechanical HVAC design includes Class 100, 1,000, and 100,000 CGMP systems, "unclassified" support area system, and process exhaust. The utility piping design includes chilled and heating hot water distribution, steam and condensate distribution, plumbing, and fire protection. The mechan i cal design also includes scope documentation for two cGMP Cold Rooms and one cGMP Freezer. • Project VENICE, Vacaville Bulk Manufacturing Facility. Mechanical lead for Project VENICE at the Vacaville bulk manufacturing facility. The design includes mod ifications to the existing HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection systems within Building 1 to support the expansion of the facil ity manufacturing capacity. Design considerations include the modification and extension of the ex ist in g "validated" systems, wh i le minimizing the i mpact on the manufacturi ng operations . The design scope also includes the addition of a 1,400-ton centrifugal chiller, cooling tower, and pumps to the site central utility system. Project drawings were developed on CAD using MicroStation PDS. • Genentech, Vacaville Bulk Manufacturing Facility (CCP1). Assisted the Genentech start-up team with the start-up of the HVAC systems and the refrigerated storage spaces at the Vacaville bulk manufacturing facility. Responsibilities included development of construction inspection and system start-up procedures for each of the HVAC and refrigeration systems, field inspection of the mechanical system installations, coordination of the equipment start-up with the site construction schedule, P&ID verification walkdowns, and review of the contractor's turnover package for each of the HVAC systems and refrigerated storage spaces. Jacobs, San Jose, CA 1995 -1997 • National Semiconductor, Site Master Plans for the Arlington, Texas; South Portland, Maine; and West Jordan, Utah Facilities. Assisted in the development of the site master plans for the various facilities. The project criteria required engineering review and site evaluation of the existing HVAC mechanical and utility piping systems using historical input data from the site facility engineering personnel. The intent of the report was to evaluate the existing systems and equipment with respect to failure vulnerability and potential for 365-day continuous operation. The reports included a review of the ability and limitations of the existing mechan i cal systems to support i mp r oved product geometries in the future . The reports also included site-specific adaptations of the generic 200mm wafer fab . • Rockwell Wafer Fab, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Performed engineering and constructability evaluation of the HVAC mechanical systems for the new Rockwell wafer fab. The evaluation focused on the air systems serving the Class 1 wafer fab area and was coordinated with the development of the construction documents. ~H -A ENblN£EIIING r. TtCHNOLDGY Richard Ronnow, P.E . RESUME page 8 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Applied Materials, Santa Clara, California. Coordinated the survey and evaluation of the existing HVAC mechanical systems at Santa Clara with respect to Building 1 seismic upgrade and the expansion of the H-6 area. Client criteria required that certain "user groups" within the building remain in operation throughout the construction schedule . The design of the mechanical systems upgrade and equipment replacement incorporated phased construction to ensure continuous system operation . • National Semiconductor, Arlington, Texas. Provided engineering and construction support for the completion of the HVAC mechanical design of a 27,500-square-foot, Class 1, wafer fab clean room expansion. The clean room des ign incorporated fan tower air recirculation units with cooling and humidification, make-up air handling systems, VOC exhaust, and process scrubbed exhaust . Hydronic support systems included hot and chilled water, tower water, reheat water, and clean steam . The mechanical design criteria specified +/-O.3F temperature control within the wafer fab clean room. The project also included conditioning the fab support areas, the expansion of the existing central utilities building, and a new chemical/gas distribution building. Eichleay Engineers 1994 -1995 • Bayer/Miles Research Facility, Berkeley, California. Provided engineering design for a 47,000 sq . ft research facility remodel. The design criteria included the phased replacement of all existing mechanical systems while maintaining continuous building operation with minimum system changeover windows. The mechanical systems served the building laboratory areas, animal holding rooms and cage wash equipment. • Sandia National Laboratories Building 911, Livermore, California. Provided engineering design for a 6,300 sq . ft office building remodel. The design criteria specified that all drawings, equipment schedules, specifications and calculations were to be prepared in accordance with the federal criteria for soft metric design. • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Livermore, California. Provided mechanical estimating services ranging from /10/1 level conceptual projects to /lB" level (10%) finished designs. Jacobs , Martinez, CA 1990-1994 • Systemix Biomedical Manufacturing. Mechanical lead engineer for the HVAC design of a 23,500-square-foot, CGMP manufacturing facility, which includes 11,700 square feet (67 rooms) of Class 10,000/100,000 clean room areas, and 11,800 square feet of manufacturing support/process equipment. The HVAC design included 14 constant volume air handlers with terminal HEPA filtration, clean steam humidification, active room pressurization control, dehumidification, cooling, and hot water reheat. Support systems include cold clean room, cold/freezer boxes , fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, laminar flow units, softwall clean rooms, and process exhaust systems. DOC controls and var iable-frequency drives ma i ntain system design conditions. Project drawings were developed on CAD using AutoCAD Release 12.0. ~lIItiA EHCIHfEfilNG & TfC1!HOlOGY Richard Ronnow, P.E. RESUME page 9 VERSA Engineering & Technology, Inc. • Chiron, Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Facility. Provided HVAC design for the 6,400-square- foot, Class 10,000/100,000 CGMP clean room facility expansion for Chi ron biopharmaceutical manufacturing facility. The design included two constant volume air handlers with terminal HEPA filtration, clean steam humidification, glycol dehumidification, hot water reheat, room pressurization, variable frequency drives, and DDC controls. Support systems included glycol chiller, dust collector, laminar flow unit, softwall clean room, fume hoods, biosafety cabinet, cold box, and cold clean room. Provided HVAC and process piping construction support. Project drawi ngs were developed on CAD and used AutoCAD Release 12.0 . • Celtrix, Biomedical Manufacturing Facility. Mechanical lead engineer for the HVAC design of a 7,200-square-foot, Class 10,000 and Class 100,000 CGMP clean room manufacturing facility for Celtrix biomedical manufacturing facility. The system included three constant volume air handlers with terminal HEPA filtration, clean steam humidification, room pressurization, hot water reheat with primary secondary hot water piping, variable frequency supply fan drive, laboratory exhaust systems, laminar flow modules, laboratory hoods, and DDC controls. The project drawings were developed on CAD using AutoCAD Release 10. • California Department of Corrections, Coalinga. Mechanical lead engineer for the mechanical deSign of a 2,200-inmate prison at Coalinga . The facility consists of 98 buildings with Levell and Level III security design. The mechanical design included the HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection systems in the assorted buildings . Special mechanical systems included automotive exhaust, welding exhaust, dust collection, underground liqu id fuel storage, high-pressure steam generation with underground distribution, welding gas storage, and smoke control. The project was divided into six bid packages with all drawings prepared on CAD us i ng AutoCAD. • Exxon-Benicia Refinery. Developed the process design specification for modifying the off-site and off-plot systems to meet the NESHAP requirements for redUcing Benzene emissions into the atmosphere for Exxon-Benicia refinery. The project scope included modifications to the water draw, drain, and sampling systems to 48 tanks, the marine loading pier, product pump pad, mogas blend i ng sump octane analyzer system , and the coker feed tank knockout drum. The process design specification included plot plans, P&IDs, and equipment datasheets for the preparation of the contract design documents. Other projects at the refinery included modification to the fire protection systems for MTBE storage tank and the light end spheres . Mechanical Contracting (Design Build) (C -4, 20, 38, 43 Contractors Licenses -Expired) 1970 -1990 MILITARY U.S. Navy, Engineering Officer, U.S.S. Washtenaw County LST-1166, 1967 to 1970. Served in the Vietnam Mekong Delta . PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Mechanical Engineer (M 17543), California , 1976 Professional Mechanical Engineer (6235274-2202), Utah, 2006 \£K "jl EH.IIirniING t. RCKNOlOGY STAFF REPORT APPROVAL ROUTING SLIP Staff Report Author: Ali Giudice Date of Meeting: 12/18/2017 Department: CDD-Planning Division Topic: APPEAL OF USE PERMIT FOR ANIMAL CARE FACILITY AT 629 LINDARO STREET Subject: APPEAL (AP17-006) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 10, 2017, ACTION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP17-004) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PET GROOMING, DAYCARE AND BOARDING FACILITY (ANIMAL CARE FACILITY) LOCATED AT 629 LINDARO STREET. Type: (check all that apply) ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Public Hearing ☐ Discussion Item ☒ Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐ Professional Services Agreement ☐ Informational Report *If PSA, City Attorney approval is required prior to start of staff report approval process Was agenda item publicly noticed? ☒ Yes ☐No Date noticed: 11/30/17 ☒Mailed ☒Site posted ☐Marin IJ Due Date Responsibility Description Completed Date Initial / Comment DEPARTMENT REVIEW FRIDAY noon 12/1 Director Director approves staff report is ready for ACM, City Attorney & Finance review. 11/29/2017 ☒ RB for Paul J CONTENT REVIEW MONDAY morning 12/4 Assistant City Manager City Attorney Finance ACM, City Attorney & Finance will review items, make edits using track changes and ask questions using comments. Items will be returned to the author by end of day Wednesday. 12/7/2017 12/4/2017 12/4/2017 ☒ RW ☒ LG ☒ MM DEPARTMENT REVISIONS FRIDAY noon 12/8 Author Author revises the report based on comments receives and produces a final version (all track changes and comments removed) by Friday at noon. 12/11/2017 ☒ AMG and RB – Final edits made and uploaded ACM, CITY ATTORNEY, FINANCE FINAL APPROVAL MONDAY morning 12/11 Assistant City Manager City Attorney Finance ACM, City Attorney & Finance will check to see their comments were adequately addressed and sign-off for the City Manager to conduct the final review. Click here to enter a date. 12/12/2017 Click here to enter a date. ☒ ☒ LG ☒ TUES noon 12/12 City Manager Final review and approval 12/13/2017 ☒ JS Alida Giudice From: Sent: To: Subject: Louis Brouillet < Monday, December 18, 2017 9:44 AM Alicia Giudice Fwd: 629 Lindaro -Tail Haven I'd like to restate my opposition to having a dog boarding business on our residential street. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. My objections are stated in the email below, and I'd like to add that only one dog barking can be disruptive to a whole neighborhood, I can't imagine how irritating and horrible a dog boarding business would be to the San Rafael residents of our neighborhood. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Kind regards louis Brouillet ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Brouillet < Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:49 PM Subject: 629 Lindaro -Tail Haven To: alicia.giudice@cityofsanrafael.org Cc: Linda Rames < I'm a resident at 61 Mariposa road and I unfortunately will be out of town on 10110 but wanted to express my comments about the 629 Lindaro -Tail Haven business. I appreciate the huge amount of work and responsibility a city like San Rafael bears in being at the service of its residents and recognize that we live in a great city thanks to the hard work of so many that are part of our city government, but in this case there are many factors that I feel merit closer attention in making a decision as to whether it is appropriate to let a dog boarding business establish itself at this particular location. The obvious one is noise. There are more indications that noise will be an issue than not in the business license application. Without depicting the whole document, it is clear that dog barking is part ofthe business which makes it inappropriate for a residential street. That seems pretty obvious to me. What is really missing is at least a proper analysis as to what the level of noise 200 dogs barking will be in the 629 Lindaro building. Or for the sake of argument 100 dogs. Think of one of barking and then multiply that by 100. Has anyone tested the sound levels inside the building and how loud it is heard from the outside? Are they willing to install proper sound insulation if there is audible barking noise in the neighborhood? It sounds to me like requiring an evaluation from a professional sound engineer would be a minimum to do. It would be a lot better than an eventual lawsuit if things have been misrepresented. Second is traffic. There are hundreds of kids dropped off every school day morning and picked-up in the afternoon causing major traffic congestion. There is usually a line of bumper to bumper cars from the comer of Woodland and Lindaro all the way to 2nd street at around 8:00am. I question the decision to allow a high traffic business to be added to this mess. Furthermore, it seems obvious that the dog drop-off and pick-up entrance will be at the back of the building since there isn't adequate space in the front. That creates an enormous amount of traffic on an already unusually busy RESIDENTIAL street. Which, by the way, is a dead-end street where we see at least 20 to 30 cars a day go down and tum-around at the end. Why add more? There are never any parking spots available on the street because of the high number of people working at Wild Care. Without an independent traffic analysis (i.e. how many dog owners a day are expected to come and drop-off or pick-up their dogs, at what time, at which frequency, what is the existing traffic ... ) it is hard to say what the impact will be but given the limited space at the back of the building and the fact that there is probably a peak traffic time (which may coincide with school traffic), my uneducated guess would be that it is going to create an excessive amount of come and go and negatively affect us residents. A dog boarding business is not just any business and I would ask that the city of San Rafael look after the well being of its citizens in a thorough and caring way by requesting proper analysis of sound and traffic and that the business license to Tail Haven be granted only if it meets proper conditions that would not negatively affect residents of Mariposa road. Thank you for your kind consideration and great work. louis Brouillet 2 2017 Mayor Phillips & Members of the City Council of San Rafael: the personal views of Robert and Linda Rames care and boarding business planned for 62.9 Lindaro St. and seriously rOICIOC;!'(l animal day "a"irtani"" and owners on Mariposa Rd. is a second appeal to the granting of a use permit Haven wishing to be Lindaro St. This business would be a commercial enterprise with a on which is zoned industrial, and a second address on Mariposa Rd which is in a residential neighborhood. as stated by the potential owner, would allow 200 on a 2.4 hour in a warehouse which was built in the 1950's and no accommodate this in an area which is not generally zoned for initial U<=\. •• .:u", appealed by a Mariposa Rd. which resulted in a hearing showed any detailed plans for he warehouse which certainly has no current ability to house, clean, or in an 8400 foot space and which is located in an area not business. As the owners at 61 Mariposa Rd., we contend that this use was is totally neighborhood, and that both previous hearings resulted in an outcome which was by the zoning staff orthe Planning Commission for following reasons: not thoroughly 1. At on August 23, 017, testimony was taken both involved estate agents, the applicant's family and customers of Ms. Rannow concerning her care in Lafayette, CA which is situated in a wholly area. We feel that testimonials based on a different type location in the East Bay should not have been used to justify a business to be located in San Rafael and which would be located In an area for 2. At the initial on August 23, a petition was presented to the zoning which was by all residents of Mariposa Rd. and which to This petition was completely ignored by the zoning official, and the permit was that all of the residents of the street would be by 3. the proposed business is in a designated flood zone. Mariposa Rd. in our We do not feel this is a or wise I" .... ."i".'," we doubt Ms. Rannow has considered how she would remove a in the property. 4. that adequately to it up as How will it container be removed? Where will be provisions for urine removal? All of the above contribute to an odor problem for which Ms. Rannow has provided no solutions. Are we just to trust that this will be done correctly and because she claims to an this type of business? What kind of oversight will be provided by the city of San Rafael to ensure the safety of the residents Mariposa Rd? 5. We feel the residents Rannow's assertion know this is This kind of who are soundproofing of the open, would allow 6. Atthe Mariposa Rd. deserve a continued peaceful place to doesn't allow dogs to bark in her establishment, as as it is in a dog's nature to respond to has been shown to be deleterious to are no plans that we have seen which In addition, there is a roll up door in the ht:>:u'il",a four of the five commissioners voted to operated by Ms. Rannow in commissioner who granting the use permit had direct knowledge n~ •• ~i'·~ Ms. the which, if location and it was in a totally industrial area with no near and, while appropriate at the location in Lafayette, in his opinion, would not be appropriate in the San Rafael I nr::I 1'lr .... 7. While we realize that this neighborhood is not quite charming Gerstle Park or any of upscale areas in which this would not deserve a minute's consideration, we the residents deserve to retain their quiet, peaceful existence. other that 8. There is no operation of type anywhere in San Rafael which is in or near a .. "'<:1"",,1"11'1::11 area. Those that do exist are in industrial or commercial locations, mostly near what makes this particular from others of the same type? We feel the City Council inappropriate for all the reasons residential on support of this in and could seriously compromise ,/ Best reg.ard~:I ""'--/~ (-4 04~~ ~ f?JwK!Uj ~n~a & Robert Rames ,n,..,"T.r,n as it is of We the undersigned oppose the approval of a facility to hou~e up to 200 dogs at 629. Lindaro Street and can attest that ,we never saw any posted notice of the 8/23/17 hearing on the proposal. Print 'Name Signature street Address Ctl ~ ~~_--,--. ,/ ------- .J t h unders oppose t.h approval of a I \ -. " . " ity to hous up to 200 d 629 Lindaro I( c " .... " 'f \. \~fijii J reet and can that we r saw any po . of th 8/ 17 hearin on he proposa n lee .. \. ' ~ I Print Nam ignature r Address ----_. __ . --- /'-lOVes OF opBf!fr,-;O/J '7-::> /vf -r:: DNL-f :3 OPEN of SPrr AU-CLoseD SU,vOA,/5 /'crJ D rtoLA)f\ ys f'-\ os,-'f3 L i/L{){ f'.I65 NO r ocLUP ' e" AFr&'-f'(. PO(18 47) ~. '1\ " I , , ... \1' ., \h . ,.. t.; " , 12/14/2017 , 5:2 1 ..... :~'1 ., .... ..., 1 .. / N DPr«..O . VJ E W Ft<.ON-mrcJ5 ·-'II •• 'lC:l f1· . ..".. .. .. EXIT r - __ .. _J . ~ 06-San :eataet 1400 RFTHA VE, p.a SOX 151580. SANRAFAEl, CA 9491~15BO NAME: l-\r\cl). J. R~('s CASH: __________________ _ ISSUED BY: E STh-ex ~c \ {"Yl e CREDIT CARD: _______________ _ OEPr: C'-h.f C.\~v\! CHECK: DESCRIPTlON:------_____ ----, TOTAL: b C;-O . 00 ! I\pp t' ().. \ ~ ~ t-he. p\ CA.\'\n i h.~ CO\"'f\YY\\s.~\DnS dec.\siOl\ 0+ '\""h.e.. ACCOUNT TO BE CHARGED Dc+Obex-\0,2.0\1 W\~e.--rihg r.e ~ lP LA L, V\ do...vo is T-. OO\-\'b-\lODI-1.13't..j -.~~ t :A~0U_. ;7r"-- 8 98 .fh.c uU aoej (11-t--eV-,tr{ AMOUNT -\\ 35"0.Ob Qu.1 Y\I1..--t: r '-e .. , CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FINANCE DEPT -CI1Y HAll 1400 FIFTH AVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 I'JI'M .CITYOFSANRAFAEL. ORG *****~'*******************************~* Reg# #/Rcpt#: 001-00114339 [ WF ] Accounting Date: Man, Oct 3D, 2017 Date/Time: Tue, Oct 31, 2017 8:35 AM ************************************~*** 9001/REVENUE-POSTING-CITY(ACCT-#-REQUIRED) REF #:APPEAL 10/10/17 PLANNING DECISION, 6 29 LI NDARO ST FEE AMOUNT: $ 350.00 RECEIPT TOTAL $ 350.00 **************************************** Payment Data: Pmta : 1 Payer: LINDA J. RAMES METHOD: CK Ref#: 8956 $ 350.00 ******************************~********* RECEIPT SUMr~ARY **************************************** TOTAL TENDERED $ 350.00 RECEIPT TOTAL $ 350.00 CHANGE DUE $ 0.00 **************************************** **************************************** u:1.0.455S / 381:HO S,}iH31:) All:) Linda Rames Mill Valley, CA 94941 October 17, 2017 Re: Case ## AP 17-004/UP 17-018 r; ~ CI-LI It'd. ([ f 0 ~ \ Members of the San Rafael City Council: This is a response to the staff report on the Tail Haven dog facility located at 629 Lindaro St. and 20 Mariposa Rd. in San Rafael and is a second appeal to deny the permitting of this business. We, residents and owners of residential property on Mariposa Rd., do not believe this type of facility is suitable adjacent to a residential street. We are responding to Point 2 and Point 3 of the staff report to deny the first appeal and the Planning Commission decision to allow the facility. Point 2 While the staff may be able to argue some degree of compatibility to this usage on the Lindaro St. side, there is certainly no compatibility on Mariposa Rd nor precedent to allow this type of use adjacent to residential housing. Since there is an address for the building at 20 Mariposa Rd, we feel that the people who live on Mariposa Rd. are in danger of wrongly losing their rights to a quiet and peaceful residential occupancy in their homes and certainly deserve serious consideration in the plans for this facility. Regarding odor from the warehouse, there is no provision for the temporary storage of solid waste until picked up. Animal waste attracts rodents which are already a problem in this area due to the creek and Wildcare. Regarding the hosing down of urine from the building, there is no explanation of where the urine ends up, possibly in the storm drains, which will cause an odor problem and other environmental issues. The previous tenant used the storm drains, which caused a terrible smell in the neighborhood that was not addressed swiftly. We disagree that the zoning designation of mixed use includes a commercial establishment as proposed by Tail Haven. As defined by the City of San Rafael, mixed use includes light industrial and live/work spaces, not a commercial enterprise. In particular, and unique to the businesses in this block on Lindaro, this operation will be open for business 24/7, which does not fit with the other businesses in the surrounding area. Point 3 In the Tail Haven plans, there is no provision for sound proofing the building. This structure was built in the 1950's and is not sound proof. Individual dog crates or kennels are not sound proof. In a facility holding 200 dogs, it would be almost impossible to stop a chorus of barking dogs once they get started. Saying you are going to do this is just that, saying it. Designating a noise coordinator is a ridiculous response to the issue. Complaints along these lines need to be addressed to the police department and that is where they will go. As stated above, residents have a right to quiet and peaceful surroundings and this facility does not provide for the rights of the tenants and owners of property on Mariposa Rd. There are large windows and a metal roll-up door on the Mariposa side of the building. In order to maintain quiet in the neighborhood, these must always be closed. Is there a provision to require this? Additionally, there must be a review of the building to determine how the space will be cooled and ventilated and potential impact of noise and smells re-evaluated at such time. ~ ~ PAYTO LINDA J. RAMES 90-4187/1211 " ORDER OF'I-+-*=,...(;,L:::.-=J£J.'+I.7-I-~=-~~'4----:iYJ,.~.:::=jI'....f==.~"If1"!~~------1 2 ~i~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~ __ ~~~-L~+-______ DOLLARS ~ .i ; I . ...... ---..... ~ ..... Esther Beirne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi all Raffi Boloyan Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:55 AM Esther Beirne; Lindsay Lara Alicia Giudice; Intern2CD; Anne Derrick; Alan Montes; Caron Parker; Michele Ginn; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan; Steve Stafford Planning Commission action from Tuesday 10/10 just a heads up that the Planning Commission heard an appeal of the doggy day care and boarding facility at 629 Lindaro 5t this past Tuesday (10/10) night The Commission ultimatey voted 5-1 to deny the appeal, thus upholding the zoning Administrator's conditional approval The Commission's decision is subject to a 5 day appeal period, that will end this coming Tuesday, 10/17 at 5pm. Not clear whether they will appeal again, my guess is no and that is what they said in the IJ article, but you never know. So, that's why I wanted to get this info out Appeals of a Planning Commission decision are filed with the City Clerk's office. Any appeal must include: 1. Letter of appeal, citing the reasons for the appeal, and include the name(s) and contact information of the appellant(s), 2. Appeal fee, which is $350 If an appeal is filed, the City Clerk will take it in and then provide a copy ofthe appeal materials and receipt to us Let me know if you have any questions Raffi ***Did you know that you can now check your zoning on line. Please go to www.cityofsanral"ael.org/zonin£ and you can find the zoning for your property at your leisure.*** Raffi Boloyan 1 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING MANAGER 1400 5th Ave, San Rafael CA 94901 Ph. 415.485.30951 raffLboloyan@citvofsanrafael.org "r~ SAN RAFAEL ~ ~ THE Cl1Y WITH A MISSION 2 San Rafael City Council Members: Mayor Gary Philips gary.phillips@cityofsanrafael.org Vice-Mayor Maribeth Bushey maribeth.bushey@cityofsanrafael.org Councilmembers Kate Colin kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org John Gamblin john.gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org Andrew Cuyugan McCullough andrew.mccullough@cityofsanrafael.org Esther Beirne esther.beirne@cityofsanrafael,org Rob Epstein rob.epstein@cityofsanrafael,org To Whom It May Concern: The formal and approved application for a design review is required to provide accurate, detailed and complete information to City staff. The applicant must submit accurate and complete plans that reflect existing conditions and proposed improvements (the more information that is provided about a proposed project, the more able the staff is to make an informed decision). Incorrect and inaccurate information has been supplied by the applicant on previous submittals regarding square footage (alterations exceed 1250 square feet), level of alteration (alterations exceed 40 0/0 of space) and site restraints. This has misled planning department officials to such a degree that a major design review was not required when it should be. The submitted application is not complete in many ways including but not limited to: the plans submitted show only one story, but the "demo plan" does not show the stairway as being demolished, so one must assume there is a second level to be used. Development of the second story is not shown. the "demo plan' also does not show any demolition of the existing tile flooring. The person who drew the inaccurate and incomplete plans indicated that he worked off information supplied by the owner, so the draftsperson cannot be blamed. Apparently conditions were not reviewed nor site measurements taken by the draftsperson of the plans. Conditions described by the owner were simply accepted. The above was taken directly from the "Guiding Principles" of the City of San Rafael's Building Division (htt ps:l!www.cityofsanrafael.org!Q uidin g -princi p lesl). The incompleteness and inaccuracy should be corrected in an application for a formal design review process which should be conducted and is hereby requested. ~4~"P~ Michael Sterling, 12/18/17 Retired Home Inspector (practicing for 25 years), former Board member of the American Society of Home Inspectors, former ASHI chapter president retired General Contractor (practicing for 3D years) Page 1 of 5 December 18, 2017 San Rafael City Council Members: Mayor Gary Philips Vice-Mayor Maribeth Bushey Councilmember Kate Colin Council member John Gamblin Councilmember Andrew Cuyugan McCullough Councilmember Esther Beirne Councilmember Rob Epstein I am the property owner of Mariposa Road. The application is not receiving the level of scrutiny a project of this proportion requires. The findings and the conditions set forth by Staff are hard to understand as the requested use is not mentioned in 14.17. We are requesting a Design Review for the project at 629 Lindaro Street known Tails Haven. A sound analysis and traffic study is also requested. A Design Review REQUIRES COMPLETE and ACCURATE plans SIGNED by a licensed Professiona I. The General Zoning Application is missing many required items; ie, 1. Second story Floor Plan (existing and proposed including square footage ), 2. Refuse Location, 3. lighting (current is glare producing) 4. Landscaping. 5.Existing Fence 6. Parking Area dimensions (front parking area is 21' wide, this error reduces parking by 2 spaces, Verbiage on plans is 13 spaces illustration is 16 spaces reduced to 15 with ADA requirements. 7. Project Data Summary Table. Minor Design Review is REQUIRED if 40% or more is altered and alterations do NOT exceed 1250 sq. ft. It would stand to reason that a Major Design Review is required regardless of exterior proposed changes. Attached Fire Report from Bob Sinnott indicates it appears to meet the requirements as a "substantial remodel") so sprinklers may be required. Page 2 of 5 The PLANING DECISION refers to Section to 14.17 and indicates the Use is a permitted Use. Animal Care Facilities is shown on The Land Use Table as Commercial Use and is allowed in LMU district with a USE Permit. Code section 14.17.20 lists the uses by name. IIAnimal Care Facilities" is not included. Does this Classification exist in 14.17.20? In order to qualify for a use permit it must meet the criteria specified in 14.17.2. What are the Specific Purposes and Conditions of Use? 14.17.20 ANIMAL KEEPING does not apply to Non Residential Use. 14.16.22 HOME OCCUPATIONS specifically prohibits Animal Keeping for Commercial Use such as Boarding and Training (Max 4 dogs) in the adjacent HR district due to the adverse effect on the neighborhood, increased traffic, extended hours of operation on evening and weekends, noise, smells, parking and the detrimental effect on the neighborhood. 14.21.080. FINDINGS The administrative use permit may issue an administrative use permit If the following findings can be made: A. Listed as a permitted use and subject to performance standards. B. Meets Performance Standards as Outlined in Chapter 14.17. No standards exist for that classification. C. Physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible and relates harmoniously to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. Placement of the building on the site disallows adequate parking on Lindaro St. Increase in traffic during peak hours, pedestrian traffic impaired, if customers are allowed to use the rear parking it will create a larger access problem at the peak hr. for school traffic 1600+ children in 4 schools all converge at Lindaro, Woodland and Mariposa. D. Other Standards required under Chapter 14.17 . Unknown Page 3 of 5 E. The Use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city: The Conditions do not mitigate the harm created by this use. The des ign is not comp lementary and or in keeping wit h the vision or purpose of t he LMU distri ct. It does not improve the neighborhood or make it more pedest r ian friendly, harmonious with adjacent neighborhoods or entice Live/Work situations. F. Will not be compatible for these reasons: a. Continuous operation-24/7 365 days a year. b. Disallow s quiet peacefu l enjoyment of property & environment c. Parking and access reduced d. Increase in traffic e. Noise (no mitigation measures) no professional oversight f. Smells (no mitigation measures}no professional oversight g. Detrimental to Health safety and welfare and injurious to properties in the neighborhood. G. That the use, as conditioned will be compatible with surrounding uses. c. (must meet Specific purposes and performance standards.) I was not able to locate this classification in 14.17.20. 14.17.010 Specific purposes. The performance standards listed in this section are intended to explicitly describe the required location configuration, design, amenities and operation of specified uses. The performance standards are intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood and maintain harmonious uses in the area. The performance standards are to be consistent with the goals and the policies of the general plan. (What are the Specific Purposes and Performance Standards for the Use "Animal Care Facilities")? "Animal Care Facilities" does not exist in 14.17. 14.17.20 Animal Keeping Page 4of5 Relates to NON -COMMERCIAL ANIMAL KEEPING. Specific proposes? Performance Standards? A. What is the definition of the Use Permitted? What are the Performance Standards? B. Unknown C. The Placement of the building on the site disallows adequate parking on lindaro St for this proposed Commercial. (site plan is incorrect as to distance between building and sidewalk reducing the proposed parking from 5 to 3). This will result in the rear parking being implemented causing access problems, increase traffic in a residential neighborhood and will increase the traffic congestion that currently exists at the intersections of Mariposa and Woodland due to the Peak Hour trips due to 1600 school children and commute traffic D. Unknown E. Conditions DO NOT MITIGATE THE HARM CREATED BY PROPOSED USE F. Will not be compatible for these reasons: '" Increase in traffic (up to 200+ trips at morning peak hour) '" Parking -Site configuration only allows 4 spaces on lindaro. '" Hours of operation not compatible with residential neighborhood '" Hours of operation not compatible with other businesses in district '" Injurious to health, safety and welfare '" Noise No Mitigation Measures No Professional oversight '" Smells No Mitigation Measures No professional oversight '" Detrimental to our property values and the of peaceful enjoyment of our environment. '" Design The design is not in keeping with the intent of the lMU District to include live/work situations, to blend Industrial uses with the School and Residential Neighborhoods in a harmonious way. Page 5 of 5 200 dogs relieving themselves a few times a day either inside on the concrete floor or on Lindaro Street is not a compatible use for one of 5 parcels zoned LMU on the West side of Lindaro between Woodland and Alberts Park, the primary pedestrian route to schools, work, downtown and the transit center. Allowing this use in this location is a complete contradiction of the intent of LMU purpose and vision. It would not be an improvement. Wild Care is our neighbor and the we welcomed the new recording studio at 619 Lindaro Street, a nicely conceived and executed addition to the district and City. Please uphold our appeal. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM July 17, 2017 Alicia GiudiSjtl~ Bob Sinnott ~ Planning File #UP17-018 -629 LINDARO ST The Tail Haven Hotel and Pet Lounge 1bis memorandum is intended to assist the applicant in determining the feasibility of this project and in the preparation of construction documents with regard 10 compliance with the California Code of Regulations Title 24 and local ordinance requirements. After review of the application and plans provided for this project, the Fire Prevention Bureau has the following comments: Merits of the Project Standard Comments: 1. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 2. Deferred Submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems: 3. a Fire Sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) b. Fire Underground plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) It appears that the project meets the requirement for "substantial remodel" as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 4.08.120 Section 202. Therefore, a fire sprinklers may be required throughout the building. Determination for fire sprinklers will be conducted during the Building Permit reView, so indicate which room are to be altered, and/or added, this will include areas within the home where sheet rock is removed to access for electrical or structural changes. A Separate deferred application by a C-16 contractor would be required. Refer to our web site for the definition of a substantial remodel. 4. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. 5. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for the water supply serving the fire protection system. Thank you. r:'o (2.JrJ LfFWI L- Z ttIIf!!: CITY 0 F ~atIt. , ' .. ~~,;;!;l=~-~~~" •• GENERAL ZONING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division :;ity of San Rafael ::ornmunity Development )epartment 1400 5th Avenue 3an Rafael, CA 94901 415) 485-3085 419) 485-3184 llanning@cityofsanrafael.org IWW.cltyofsanrafael.org What are the General Submittal Requirements for a Zoning Application? ./ General Application Form. Form must be filled out completely, identify all zoning entitlement(s) being requested, and be signed by the applicant and property owner (mandatory). Unsigned applications s~all not be accepted for filing. ./ Fees. A Fee Schedule is available at the City's website at www.cityofsanrafael.org. Make checks payable to the City of San Rafael. Current Fixed / Deposit Fee Amount(s): I '· • Applications shall not be accepted for filing until all required fees are submitted. ./ Project Plans. A minimum initial submittal of __ hardcopy and collated plan sets AND one (1) electrollic copy of plans shall be provided (i.e., typically six (6) plan sets fol' minor applications and ten (10) plan sets fol' major applications). ~ Plans shall be on same-sized sheets, drawn accurately, legible, to scale at 20-scale for civil drawings and Y4-scale typo for architectural drawings, and folded to 9x 14-inches size. Large sets with many sheets should be divided logically into smaller sets, bound by a rubber band or binder clip; e.g., Architectural, Civil, Landscape, Electrical, etc. Do nDt submit large plan sets With each sheet individually folded. ~ Plan sheets at 24x36-inch maximum for full size are recommended for large projects along with one llx17-inch or 8.5xll-inch reduction. Smaller sized plan sets maybe accepted for minor projects. ~ Additional plan sets will be required prior to scheduling projects for required hearings. The project plans shall include the following minimum information: S'te Plan s of entire property, containing the following minimum information: .' icinity Map, marking the site location or separate Con.textuaLMap-:-.for major (fevelopmenr::::-projects._ .Jiho.:wing_surr.ounding._-f'eatures-, ~top()"grapTiy, v~tation, ~J..QYlmltIDts;-premh'l€mt-publ~paintsJU)d..lLiew shed s - • vBite Conditions, showing existing and proposed building ,and site improvements, site slope(s), property lines, easements, adjacent street names, roadway and frontage improvements, parking spaces, outdoor uses/accessory structures or other associated pjPject improvements, hillside natural state, significant trees, vegetati'on and features. • r-'Site Work, extent of grading or building improvements ~jacent Buildings and Uses .lI'~~ject Data Summary Table(s), showing existing and proUQ.sed site size, building floor areas, parking supply, landscape or natural state provided, required yard areas, etc. • ,~Yil~.fStti:ts-#'s, for Dmititellant 9yildiRgs, \\.Lith a legend Of ke¥ tyiHg tQ.. V ~marytableg_ . • y'N)lrth Arrow, i.e., reference north and true north. • vPJ;m sheets oriented '~ith Referenc~ North or True North as the top of the plan sheet. II vS;mle used and GraphIC Scale prOVIded • \/Name of plan preparer, date prepared and revised, project name and address [J Floor Plan, containing the following minimum information: • "Floor Levels, Areas, Walls, Windows, Doors, Equipment, Rooms and Uses; existing ayd proposed . • VLocation, Dimensions and Square Footage of project area o vProject Area identified, with outline or shading o rAcale, Graphic Scale and North alTOW I o vOrient all other plan sheets (e.g., civil, landscape, floor plans) to match site plan orientation Despite its reputation as a minor irritant, research has shown noise to be a debilitating and potentially lethal toxin. Hence, forcibly projecting noise into someone's living quarters in chronic fashion has the potential to disrupt their autonomic and endocrine functions severely enough to catapult the entire family into a state of frequent agitation and near constant distress, thereby setting in motion a predictable process of physical, mental, and emotional deterioration, accompanied by functional impairment and the severe disruption of interpersonal relationships. This chart delineates that process. ~ ~ 11'1 ••. :.lifF.1~r:.j~Gl1mil~~'[:.lI[:.Ir:i~ll~1 "J-1:;.j~f,:nriJiJl Increased heart rate Respiration Increases Blood pressure Shift In hormonal Shift In electrolyte Dry mouth Goose bumps Increases proRle balance -- Sweatlng Pupils of the eye Changes In blood Altered blood' Altered blood Row Cold hands Cold feet dilate lipids viscosIty ---.-----Digestion slows Stomach upset Loss of appetite Transient sexual Tooth grinding Bradng/muscle Anxiety dramatically dysfunction tension --- Agitation Irritability Anger Aggression Interpersonal conmct Discord within the Self-medicating -~a.rn'!!~"!~ Functioning Impaired Physical coordination Accident rate Error rate potentiated Inability to think Judgment Is Impaired Inability to make Impaired potentiated dearly dedslons ----- ~IUW' .... J[iHUi17il101 ,'" ~ [:.lei iIlITl ft--"-JIDD II),: -11IilID' -II .. 1111 ~~ll:.jU·"II.'IIItH:.filj~\~ ~ AutonomiC disruption Sense of Endoafne Constant Emotional lability Exaggerated Fear of being startled grows constant constant tension disruption constant emotional upset startle response ----Schedule Is adjusted Chronic Antldpatory anxiety Uncontrollable Chronic anger Chronic strlfe within ChroniC depreSSion disorganization due to so all activities revoille rumination the family constant disruption of around the noise c-----'-scheduled activities source Noisy rooms of Uncontrollable rage Increased risk of Affectionate Chronic sexual Sodal relationships Sodal activities house abandoned violence exchanges cease dysfunction abandoned abandoned r------ Childhood learning Kids fall behind Adult Job performance Upset over new Job Symptoms mimicking Olfflculty failing asleep Difficulty staying psychological -even In a quiet asleep -even In a Impaired In school dips stress disturbance develop environment quiet environment ~ -1-. ChroniC fatlgue Merriment Chronic restlessness Concentration Memory Impaired Chronic musde Chronic muscle becomes rare Impaired tension contraction headaches r persisten~'y :currlng ---- Aversion to gOing Regular exerdse Once occasional high Heart disease Old substance New substance [ m,,"'M ""."'~ outdoors ceases blood pressure now takes root use Increases use begins becomes chronic ------ Substance use Marked consumption Reaction time Accident rate Sensitivity to noise Family Interactions Children fall In schoo l solldlftes of Rx drugs Is slowed Increased Is heightened grow dysfunctional -;------------------- Newfound overweight Chronic loss of Newfound Chronic Resilience wanes as Gums and dental Chronic overeating gastro-Intestlnal adaptive capacity Is problem appetite underweight problem distress diminished health deterforate --------,- Immune system Increased risk of OngOing hair loss Exacerbation of pain Worsening of dystunctJon -Increased developing stress-Increasing frequency Recuperation from preexisting maladies risk of cold. flu, and of Illness In general Illness hampered Infection related disorders ~------ Classical conditioning Abandonment of Abandonment of Hopelessness/sulddal Exhaustion Heart palpitations generates secondary recreational activities essential activities Ideation Premature aging distress and discord -- After years of being elevated due to noise force-fed into the home, chronic hypertension -the silent killer -wreaks irreversible damage. Enlarged heart Stroke SOURCES, Th. WlKld HNfth OrganJutton Th. e:u,opNn Hurt 'ourna. Tho Untied Sbtaa i!nwlronmanlal Prohn:Uon Agerllt'Y Heart attack Dementia The JDuma' Dr !lqIertmlln18l Medldfta Copyright (P 2007 by Craig Millon -All rights reserved Heart failure Hardening of the arteries Aneurysm Total loss of sexual function Eye damage Kidney damage The Ga .... " JnstItute 0' Sydney, Au.sb'aJl. Tit. r .... rdl 0' the lut.It..uh for Sod.' Mlldldna aIBerlin'. a..rtte UnlYentty Nedk:al Centra 1"JM artttsh Journal 0' OcaapatioMI and EnwlrDnmWltll Medk:lna lb. An ... I .... 0' Envlronmantal H .. 1ttI 1lHt ,... .. rd'l 0' Cral, Mlnn, !d.D., ltar.llnedolSo"" For more on systemic noise trauma, see Section Seven of barklngdogs.net , .I .... ., . ,"' . ~ .. ' .. ~ ... . '. ~ .~ -i. -. ,"-.~. ... .... .,,' ~ . -. "'~ .. .... ......... . . -=..: - _ • . -. " --.. ' ., ., .1'. " , . .. • ~~.~ I, ..... , j 'a , •• J' ',' 'I ~. r' ' . :._.~ L-:~ , _ .. ", r -. ... • " I .. -- -.•. ... . -----.;; ... ..:,- ~ . .. .. -..... _ .. r ...... .:_ . -. • a ..... ~ f.J n . ... -.... ...... - ." ,I , ... " .. ... .. :a. 1 . . T"