County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development. DATE: May 25, Planning Commission. Valerie Negrete, Associate Planner

Transcription

1 County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development DATE: May 25, 2017 TO: FROM: Planning Commission Valerie Negrete, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Operation Freedom Paws Use Permit Modification RECOMMENDED ACTION Public hearing to consider a Modification of a Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval to allow for an expansion of a commercial dog training and kennel facility, including special events and increased height limit for a proposed flag pole from 35 to 40 feet. Operation Freedom Paws works with veterans to train their own dog and then certifies the trainer and dog together as a service dog team. File: P-16ASA; Owner/Applicant: Sunset Farms/Operation Freedom Paws, Mary Cortani; Property Address/Location: Llagas Avenue, San Martin; Zoning: A1-5ac; Supervisorial District: 1; Assessor's Parcel No Possible action: a. Adopt/Reject Addendum to previously adopted Negative Declaration AND b. Grant/Deny Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: (a) Adopt Addendum to previously adopted Negative Declaration; and (b) Grant Modified Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal The proposed application is to modify an existing use permit and architecture and site approval (ASA) to expand a commercial dog kennel and training facility from 70 dogs to 250 dogs, and allow four special events a year of up to 200 people, and construct a new 40-foot flag pole. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 1 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

2 The existing commercial dog kennel and training facility, also known as Operation Freedom Paws, is a non-profit organization that pairs disabled veterans with service dogs to assist them in their daily lives. Dogs come to the site at various times for dog training classes, boarding, and demonstrations. Most of the dogs trained at operation Freedom Paws come from rescue shelters. The project operations are conducted within two warehouse buildings (8,000 square feet each), an office building (2,400 square feet), plus an unenclosed pole barn (1,600 square feet) (see Attachment B). The application to modify the Use Permit facility includes expanding the hours of operation from the previously approved hours of 7:00AM to 6:00PM every day to 7:00AM to 10:00PM every day with some limited ability to have early drop-off and pick-up for overnight boarding. The proposed expanded services would include eight dog training classes a day (instead of four) seven days a week from 9:00AM to 9:00PM. Each weekday training class would range from one to two hours while weekend classes would last up to two and a half hours each. At full capacity, eight classes a day would be held with no more than 40 people attending each training class. A typical training program to pair a veteran with a service dog lasts 48 weeks. Overnight dog boarding is offered 24 hours a-day seven days per week. Dogs are boarded within the warehouses in kennels. Limited before and after-hours dog drop-off and pick-up is proposed as a part of this project, between the hours of 5:00AM to 7:00AM and 9:00PM TO 10:00PM by appointment. Overnight boarded dogs are brought into the warehouses at night. No activities are proposed to occur outdoors during the hours of 10PM to 7AM. The expanded operations will occur within existing onsite buildings with no additional buildings or changes to existing buildings proposed. The proposed modification of the use permit will also allow up to four weekend (Saturday and/or Sunday only) events a year with a maximum attendance of 210 people, including up to 10 support staff, to occur between 7:00AM and 10:00PM. Most events would be situated outdoors under the existing unenclosed pole barn. Any events with amplified sound would have speakers oriented towards the parking area and Llagas Road. Events will not be held during the same time as training classes. Project Setting The subject 4.21-acre property is located at Llagas Avenue and is zoned General Use (A1) with a -5ac combining zone. The property s general plan land use designation is Rural Residential and it is located within the San Martin Industrial Use Permit Area. The site is bordered by Llagas creek to the north and two commercial / industrial uses across Llagas Avenue, an automobile wrecking and recycling yard. To the south is an orchard with a single-family residence. The San Martin transfer station is located on the parcel immediately north of Llagas Creek (See Attachment B). REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION CEQA, Environmental Review The proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted for the Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 2 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

3 commercial kennel and training facility by the Planning Commission on August 28, Planning office staff evaluated the proposed project modifications and found the expansion would not result in any new environmental impacts not identified within the previously adopted Negative Declaration, hence an Addendum to the Negative Declaration has been prepared (See Attachment C). In evaluating the potential environmental impacts from the expanded project, staff specifically analyzed Aesthetics (for the proposed 40-foot flag pole), Traffic and Utilities (for increase in on-site intensity and events), and Noise (for increased day to day operational intensity and event noise), and found that the modifications as proposed and as conditioned would not result in any new potentially significant environmental impacts, nor require any new mitigation. Therefore, given the project operation, design and proposed conditions, the project would not result in any significant impacts. Use Permit findings All Use Permits are subject to the findings per Zoning Ordinance Section included below. An explanation how this project meets the required findings are presented in italics. A. The proposed use conforms with the General Plan, with the Zoning Ordinance, and with all other standards and guidelines applicable to the proposed use that have been adopted by the planning commission or board of supervisors; Per the County General Plan, commercial development, such as this, should be considered based on its location, traffic flow and proximity to residential and other commercial uses (GP Policy R-LU 12). The property is situated in a manner that provides a buffer between the kennel and dog-training use and adjacent uses so as to not create any conflicts. Traffic was analyzed as part of the expansion and no new impacts were found to exist with the increase in classes, boarding and special events four times a year. Noise as a result of more dogs and events was found to be within County Noise levels. General Plan policy, R-LU requires development within the vicinity of Llagas Creek to be situated and designed to prevent hazardous discharge into the creek. The project does not propose any new structures and will use an existing turf area for overflow event parking. The project, including the submitted dog waste management plan was reviewed by the Health Department and found to be adequate. No new development is proposed within the vicinity of Llagas creek to impact sensitive habitat or the mapped 100-year floodplain within the property boundaries. Adequate septic system, water supply and drainage facilities are available for the project expansion consistent with General Plan policies, R-LU Within the San Martin Industrial Use Permit Area, new or expanded uses may be established/conducted only upon issuance of a Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) (R-LU 120 b.). The project as described below meets the Use Permit and ASA findings to allow modifications for expansion of the kennels and training use existing on site. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 3 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

4 Per, R-LU 119, non-residential development in the San Martin Planning Area is required to conform to the San Martin Integrated Design Plan. This Plan requires that non-residential uses shall be designed and situated to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character through architecture, building massing, siting of the property, landscaping and the use of rural icons such as windmills or water tanks. The modification does not involve the construction of new structures, other than a 40- foot flagpole. The use is located within existing buildings, therefore, there would be no potential conflicts with the San Martin Integrated Design Plan. Mature landscaping exists along the property frontage which further helps to screen the buildings from Llagas Road. The proposed 40-foot flagpole is not significantly higher than existing buildings on site and mostly screened due to this mature vegetation. An existing turf field would be used occasionally for overflow parking for events but there would be no grading for this use and no new site disturbance would be needed. The 40-foot flagpole is five feet above the height limit of an accessory structure. However, an allowance for exceedance of height in the A1 district for non-residential uses can be granted by the County as part of the Use Permit and ASA decision per Zoning Ordinance Section C. Given the commercial nature of the site, screening provided from existing landscaping, and height of adjacent buildings, the height increase for the flagpole is not considered significant. B. The site is adequate for the proposed use, including but not limited to being of adequate size and shape to accommodate all facilities and development features to integrate the use into the surrounding area and to provide any necessary or appropriate buffers between the use and the surrounding area; The subject site is over four acres in size. It is located in the San Martin Industrial Use Permit area, where the general topography is flat. The site is devoid of vegetation except for some perimeter trees and shrubs, particularly along Llagas Creek which constitutes a riparian corridor. The proposed modification includes an increase in dogs from 70 to 250 at any given time. Activities on-site would be staggered throughout the day and the maximum limit accounts for the peak capacity of boarding and training classes, likely to occur at transitional periods between classes. At capacity, the boarding will not be more than 100 dogs and classes would have no more than 150 dogs. The existing facility and the subject site has adequate room for the proposed expansion and associated increase in parking demand. C. The proposed use, by its nature, scale, intensity or design, will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district or neighborhood, and will not be significantly detrimental to any important and distinctive features of the site s natural setting; Dog kennels are an allowed use in the A1-5ac. zoning district, within the San Martin Industrial Use Permit Area, subject to obtaining a Use Permit and ASA. On August 28, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit and ASA for the use of the site as a kennel boarding and training facility for up to 70 dogs. The applicant is requesting a modification of the Use Permit to expand to up to 250 dogs at peak use during the day due to the success of and market demands placed on their operations. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 4 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

5 No new structures or site changes are proposed with this expansion and the site has adequate room to accommodate the expanded use. The increased intensity will not impair the integrity of the zoning district or the San Martin Industrial Use Permit Area. The 40-foot high flagpole, ancillary to the proposed use would not be detrimental to the site and neighborhood character, due to existing vegetation and screening provided by the existing buildings on-site. No improvements are proposed within 150 feet of Llagas Creek. Overflow parking will be provided on-site for any events on existing pervious turf areas. Existing mature landscaping around the perimeter of the property further helps to screen the use from the adjacent residential and commercial properties. D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. In this respect the planning commission shall further find, without limitation, that; 1. Adequate off-street parking, loading and unloading areas (if applicable), and handicapped access will be provided; The use classification for the proposed project is a Commercial Kennel. Onsite parking requirements for the proposed commercial kennel and its ancillary training and event use would be the following: LAND USE: Parking Standard** Use Parking Standard Proposed Required Parking Spaces Totals Spaces Provided Commerical Kennel Dog Training Special Event on-site Overflow Spaces.25 space per animal & 1 space per employee 1 space per staff person & 1 space per 2 students Per Traffic Operational Analysis dated March 18, 2017 *Five (5) ADA spaces are provided within the project site ** Per County Zoning Ordinance ***128 spaces for events will include usage of 88 spaces 100 dogs with 11 employees staff persons, 60 students people with 10 staff persons Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 5 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

6 The existing parking areas accommodate 88 permanent parking spaces that meets the requirements for a commercial kennel and dog training facility. Events were analyzed as part of the Traffic Analysis Report and found that for 200 people with 10 staff persons for the event (2.15 persons per vehicle), the total parking spaces needed would be 103 spaces. No training classes will be conducted during events (See Attachment A, Condition 10). The 128 parking spaces (88 permanent and 40 overflow), will be adequate to support the parking needs during events (Attachment B, Site Plan, Proposed Parking Exhibit). As required by County code, up to five (5) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant spaces will also be provided. 1. Appropriately designed site access will be provided, including safe and adequate access for fire and emergency vehicles (including secondary access where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal); The site access is through an existing driveway off a County-maintained road (Llagas Avenue), which is appropriately designed to provide safe access for visitors, fire, and other emergency vehicles. The Fire Marshal s Office has reviewed the proposed project and found that adequate access for emergency vehicles and a fire truck turnaround has been provided. Therefore, the project meets the Fire Marshal s standards. 2. The use will not adversely affect water quality. Adequate wastewater treatment, disposal and sanitation facilities will be provided and will satisfy all applicable local, state and federal requirements; Llagas Creek runs along the north and south property lines of the subject property. A portion of the site at the northeast corner is mapped to be within the 100-year floodplain. Since there are no improvements proposed as a part of this project, there would be no impacts to Llagas Creek or the 100-year floodplain. The expanded project would increase water use and waste disposal (through a septic tank and leach field) and have been reviewed and conditioned by the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) to ensure that systems will be adequately installed, repaired, and maintained. In order to ensure the system remains in good repair (per the Septic System Modification plan dated March 8, 2017), the system shall be evaluated by a licensed septic tank contractor or septic pumper on an ongoing basis (Attachment A Condition 20). Both domestic water and fire protection water supplies will continue to be obtained from the San Martin Water Company and have been determined to be adequate by DEH and the Fire Marshal s Office. 3. The use will not be detrimental to the adjacent area because of excessive noise, odor, dust or bright lights; Updated noise analysis was submitted by the applicant, and peer-reviewed by the County (See Attachment C). These reports evaluated potential for proposed project noise impact at the closest residential properties, 300 feet to the south Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 6 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

7 from subject site. The noise reports concluded that dog barking noise would be under the County s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards, and no mitigation measures were recommended for dog barking noise. Per the applicant, dog barking would also be managed by staff with training and dog handling tools, dog bark collars, re-locating dogs within kennels, and by moving barking dogs indoors, to further limit any dog barking noise. Proposed event noise was reviewed in a supplemental noise report dated April 20, 2017 (See Attachment C). Most special events would be situated underneath the existing pole barn, which is unenclosed, and have amplified sound in the form of a Public Address system, a band, or equivalent. The applicant has stated that any bands will typically perform from 5:00-5:45PM with a dinner break and then again between 5:45 and 9:15PM. As conditioned, speakers would be placed within the pole barn and face west towards Llagas Road, away from the residential properties on Murphy Avenue (See Attachment A, Condition 11). Amplified noise would be limited to short durations and would be shielded by the surrounding buildings on the property. Noise exposure from amplified sound would be below County noise standards. Due to the infrequent nature of events, and siting of the amplified sound sources, as conditioned, the noise from amplified sound would not be detrimental to the surrounding residences. Odor from the site is not expected to be significant. Dog Waste is picked up, bagged and disposed of on a daily basis to avoid odors, in compliance with the project s dog waste management plan. This plan was reviewed by DEH and was found to present no health, safety or welfare risk. No dust generating activities, such as grading or construction, are proposed as part of the modification. Exterior lights are existing and no new lighting is proposed except for focusedlighting for the flag pole. As conditioned, any new lighting would be required to illuminate only the area intended and shall not result in off-site glare. 4. The use will not substantially worsen traffic congestion affecting the surrounding area; The proposed modifications to the project would increase the maximum average daily trips from 325 to 495. The Roads and Airports Department reviewed the application and determined that no traffic improvements would be required and that the increase in traffic would not affect the Level of Service (LOS) at Llagas Avenue, or nearby intersections. Trip generation for the modification will take place primarily during off-peak hours. Event traffic will be on Saturdays and Sundays during periods of low traffic levels. With the nature of the site and open rural roads surrounding the site there are no sight distance issues associated with access to and from the site. During the Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 7 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

8 four events a year, the applicant will be providing on-site traffic monitors to direct vehicles to the designated on-site overflow parking areas. Hence, the proposed modification as conditioned will not worsen the traffic conditions in the surrounding area. 5. Erosion on the site will adequately be controlled; and There is no grading proposed and occasional overflow parking will take place on the existing turf yard with the closest parking stall approximately 70 feet from the bank of Llagas Creek. The overflow parking area was reviewed by Land Development Engineering and found to be consistent with Santa Clara County s Policies and Standards Pertaining to Grading and Erosion. 6. Adequate storm drainage exists or will be provided and will comply with all applicable local, state and federal requirements. No changes to the site are proposed impacting storm drainage. The expansion plans were submitted and reviewed by the LDE office and plans comply with all local, state, and federal requirements. Findings for Architecture and Site Approval All Architecture and Site Approvals are subject to the findings per Zoning Ordinance Section included below in underline. An explanation on how this project meets the required findings are present in italics. A. Adequate traffic safety, on-site circulation, parking and loading areas, and insignificant effect of the development on traffic movement in the area; As discussed under Use Permit Finding D.5. above, the supplemental traffic analysis (Attachment C) concluded that the proposed modification would not result in significant traffic impacts on traffic movement in the area as the proposed modification would generate trips primarily in non-peak hours. Onsite circulation and parking are adequately designed to support the proposed use and the modification to the dog kennel and training operations. During the weekend events, proposed up to four times a year, the applicant will provide parking on-site within an existing turf area, with an on-site attendant to guide and direct traffic to parking spaces. B. Appearance of proposed site development and structures, including signs, will not be detrimental to the character of the surrounding neighborhood or zoning district; No new structures are proposed except for a 40-foot flagpole. The new flagpole would be 5 feet higher than the 35-foot height limitation in this zoning district. However, since the flagpole would be screened from neighboring properties due to existing mature vegetation along the Llagas Road frontage and the adjacent buildings, this 5- foot height allowance can be made as a part of the ASA permit. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 8 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

9 Any new proposed lighting shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning office, would be required to be directed downwards to minimize spillover and visibility to adjacent properties (Attachment A, Conditions 16-17). C. Appearance and continued maintenance of proposed landscaping will not be detrimental to the character of the surrounding neighborhood or zoning district; Landscaping on the site is existing and contains mature trees and bushes along the property perimeter. Any new landscaping would be subject to the County Landscaping Ordinance. D. No significant, unmitigated adverse public health, safety and environmental effects of proposed development; The project will not have any adverse impact on public health and safety, or the environment. As discussed above, the proposed project modifications were found to not result in any new environmental impacts not identified within the previously adopted Negative Declaration. E. No adverse effect of the development on flood control, storm drainage, and surface water drainage; The expansion of the use would not impact surface water drainage, flood control or storm drainage as no physical changes is proposed on site, other than the installation of a new 40-foot flagpole. F. Adequate existing and proposed fire protection improvements to serve the development; The existing access driveway will be maintained for primary access and emergency access. As a condition of approval, the County Roads Department will require curb improvements to the driveway approach to be completed within the first year of project approval. G. No significant increase in noise levels; The proposed modifications, including higher number of dogs and overlapping activities were evaluated in applicant prepared noise studies, peer-reviewed by the County. There would be some increase in noise levels due to increased intensification of use and events with outdoor amplified noise, however as identified previously under Use Permit Finding D.2., the dog barking noises would be managed by the employees, and outdoor amplified noise would be oriented to reduce noise impacts on the closest residences. An analysis of the worst-case scenario of 165 dogs outdoors barking simultaneously was also evaluated and found to be under the County Noise Ordinance standards. Therefore, the increase in noise levels would not be significant. H. Conformance with zoning standards. Standards applicable to non-residential uses may be varied by the ASA committee to promote excellence of development provided that the deviation from standards will better accomplish the purposes of this chapter; Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 9 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

10 The proposed commercial kennel and dog training facility requires a Use Permit within the A1-5ac. zoning district. As discussed above, the project meets all the requirements for the findings. The application includes an increase of five feet for a 40-foot tall flagpole, which has a height limit of 35-feet in the zoning district. Given the commercial use of the site and the height of the adjacent buildings, along with the mature landscaping on the property which provide screening, the height increase would not be significant and will be in keeping with the nature and intensity of the site and surroundings. I. Conformance with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; The proposed project is in conformance with the County General Plan and the San Martin Integrated Design Plan. It is the intent of the General Use zoning district to allow flexibility for uses and development appropriate for a particular location. A detailed explanation for general plan conformance is provided above under the use permit finding A. J. Substantial conformance with the adopted "Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval" and other applicable guidelines adopted by the County, or by the appropriate city for land within the city's urban service area. The project is not within any city s urban service area. The project conforms with the adopted Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval as conditioned. These conditions are enclosed in Attachment B, proposed Use Permit Modification and ASA Conditions. Commercial Kennel Zoning Ordinance Supplemental Use Regulations: The property is zoned A1-5ac which allows for a Commercial Kennel use and ancillary facilities subject to a Use Permit and ASA approval. The operation provides training and boarding for dogs and is classified as a commercial kennel. Commercial kennels are defined as facilities for shelter or training of three (3) of more dogs. This category of use allows for incidental activities such as grooming, training, and exercising. The proposed use would allow for all of these activities in addition to its non-profit function of pairing of veterans with service dogs and related trainings. Supplemental Use regulation for Kennels-Commercial requires the following: 1. properties must be larger than 2.5 acres - subject property is 4.21 acres, 2. not within the immediate vicinity of a substantial residentially developed area subject site is within the Industrial Use Permit Area and surrounded by limited residential uses, 3. have animals within a specified areas of the property and screened from visibility from adjacent properties - use would primarily be within warehouse or in designated outdoor yard spaces and training facilities substantially screened from adjacent property owners due to existing vegetation. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 10 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

11 Commercial Kennels are also subject to Ordinance Code Division Chapter B31, Chapter V (Attachment E) related to the care of animals to ensure adequate housing, sanitation, and overall treatment of dogs in commercial kennels. A commercial kennel license from the Santa Clara County Animal Control Office is required along with annual inspections to ensure compliance with these standards (Attachment A, Condition 7). BACKGROUND Previous Approvals August 28, 2014, Planning Commission Approval At its August 28, 2014 hearing the Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the Use Permit and ASA permit to allow a 70-dog commercial dog boarding and training facility. At the time, the applicant anticipated 70 dogs coming to the site at various different times of the day for training classes, boarding, and demonstrations. January 28, 2016, Planning Commission Post Monitoring The first status report on the August 2016 approval was presented as part of Use Permit condition #7 (File No A-14P-14EA), requiring verification of operational conditions. As part of this status report, the applicant was to apply for a Use Permit modification to legalize any expanded activity advertised or observed since the project approval in A second status report, absent a Use Permit modification, would be due in August However, that reporting requirement would be superseded by the modified conditions of approval, if approved by the Planning Commission, requiring a one year status report in May Public Outreach A community meeting was held on January 17, 2017 as required under the County s Early Outreach and Notification Policy for a Use Permit modification. At this meeting, the applicant presented their proposed project modifications. Public Comments The County received one letter of support and a public comment letter with signatures from five interested neighbors (Attachment D). The latter expressed concerns over odor, noise and traffic associated with the proposed expansion. Department responses are provided below: Noise was analyzed as part of the project review and is discussed in this report under specific Use Permit and ASA findings. Dog barking noise and event noise associated with crowds and amplified music were found to be within the County Noise limits. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 11 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

12 An updated traffic report, provided as part of the project review, concluded that trip generation from modified project activities were outside of peak hours or during weekends when traffic would be relatively low and would not be impacted. A dog waste management plan was evaluated by the Health Department during project review. Waste is immediately bagged and disposed in one of several trash collectors on-site. Any odor associated with the site was not considered to be significant and would be difficult to pinpoint given the other industrial uses in the immediate vicinity. STAFF REPORT REVIEW Project Planner: Valerie Negrete, Associate Planner, , Valerie.negrete@pln.sccgov.org Reviewed by: Manira Sandhir, Principle Planner, , Manira.sandhir@pln.sccgov.org ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Use Permit Modification & ASA conditions of approval (PDF) Attachment B Site Plan (PDF) Attachment C CEQA Addendum to Negative Declaration (PDF) Attachment D Public Comments (PDF) Attachment E Provisions of Division B31 of the Ordinance Code (PDF) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 12 of 12 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: May 25, 2017

13 ATTACHMENT A Use Permit Modification and Architecture & Site Approval Conditions of Approval File Number: P-16PA-16EA Owner /Applicant: Sunset Properties Inc. / Operation Freedom Paws Meeting Date: May 25, 2017 Project Description: Proposed modification of an existing Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval to expand a commercial dog kennel and training facility from 70 dogs to 250 dogs, allow events four times a year of up to 200 people with amplified music, including overflow parking area, and the construction of a new 40-foot flagpole. PLANNING OFFICE Contact Valerie Negrete at for details regarding these conditions. 1. These Conditions of Approval encompass and supersede previous conditions of the Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval, approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, The proposed use shall take place in accordance with approved plans for the Use Permit, Architecture and Site Approval, dated March 30, The project includes the following main activity areas: a. Building A is an existing office and will continue to be utilized as an office and meeting room. b. Building B and C are existing warehouse buildings and will continue to be used as training facilities and indoor night-time boarding / kenneling. c. Building D is an existing unenclosed pole barn that will be used for outdoor seating for demonstrations, event activities or employee use. Boarding and Training 3. The maximum limit of dogs at any given time on the project site shall be 250 dogs, with no more than 165 of them outdoors. 4. The maximum number of people on site at any given time shall be 80 when training classes are in session, including employees and volunteers. File No P dated 5/17/17, v4

14 5. Days of operation for dog training classes are seven days a week between 9:00AM to 9:00PM. 6. Boarding and Kenneling shall be 24 hours per day, seven days a week. The dropoffs and pick-ups for this part of the operation is between 7:00AM and 7:00PM all days. Limited (no more than 5 per day) after hour drop-offs and pick-ups starting at 5:00AM and ending at 10:00PM shall be allowed by appointments only. 7. A Kennel Permit shall be maintained for the duration of the operation. Per County Ordinance Code B31-32, the maximum number of animals, as well as boarding regulations, sanitation and care, shall be governed and annually inspected through provisions in the Santa Clara County Animal Control Department Permit. 8. The outside yard areas shall be adhered to per the waste management plan dated April These areas shall remain a minimum of 50 feet from Llagas Creek. For any modifications to these areas or expansions closer to the creek, the Applicant must provide a water quality plan to identify how removal of any animal waste and storm runoff prevention from carrying animal waste into Llagas Creek will be achieved. Special Events 9. The Use Permit modification allows four special events in a calendar year, for a maximum number of 210 attendees, including up to 10 support staff, at any given time. For the purpose of this Use Permit, an event is described as an activity open to the public and ancillary to the use of the property as a commercial kennel and training facility. These special events shall be limited to Saturdays and Sundays between 7 am and 10pm. A Saturday and Sunday event occurring consecutively shall be considered one event. Any event serving alcohol must comply with current Alcoholic Beverage Control licensing requirements. 10. No such events shall be conducted during training classes. 11. Outdoor amplified sound shall comply with the County s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. Events with outdoor amplified music or sound shall be situated underneath the pole barn with associated speakers facing Llagas Avenue and as further described in the Jeffrey Pack Live Music Sound Analysis report dated April 18, On-site overflow parking shall be made available to all event attendees, per approved plans. File No P dated 5/17/17, v4

15 Parking 13. A minimum of 74 parking stalls for kenneling and training shall be provided in the parking lot, including at least five (5) disabled-accessible parking stalls in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), as shown on plans dated March 30, Event overflow parking shall be provided as shown on approved plans dated March 30, These may remain as pervious surfaces. 15. Existing parking space area and driveways shall remain paved with asphalt or better. Exterior Lighting 16. Any new outdoor lighting will require building permits and shall include use of full cut-off lighting fixtures directed downwards to minimize spillover lighting and visibility off the property. 17. Light fixtures on the flag pole shall be shielded such that the light source is not visible from beyond the boundaries of the subject property. Post Approval Monitoring 18. The developer/operator must provide a status report for the first year of modified project approval. One year after project approval, the applicant shall provide a report to the Planning Office with the following: a. Number of dog training classes held the prior year; b. Total number of dogs boarded along with copy of Department of Animal Control permit; c. Number of events, with their dates and number of attendees at each. The first annual status report will cover year 2017 and any conducted or planned 2018 events under the Use Permit modification; This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Manager or designated staff. Staff will verify condition compliance and if there are no instances of non-compliance, as determined by the Planning Manager, no additional monitoring would be required. If there are any substantial compliance issues, the monitoring report will be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission and the Planning File No P dated 5/17/17, v4

16 Commission may schedule a revocation or modification hearing under Section of the County Zoning Ordinance to bring the project into compliance. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Contact Yvonne Arroyo at (408) for information regarding the following: 19. The removal of the existing chain link fence located in the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) easement is deferred until such time as needed for Phase 2 of the Upper Llagas Flood Protection Project or other District project consistent with its easement rights which requires removal of the fence. The applicant, or the current property owner, should the applicant no longer lease the property, shall cause the existing chain link fence to be moved out of the District easement within 90 days of notice from the District that the fence must be removed. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Contact Darrin Lee at (408) for details regarding the following conditions: 20. The existing septic system should be evaluated by a licensed septic tank contractor or septic pumper on an ongoing basis. It is recommended that the evaluation include pumping, inspecting and water testing the septic tank, and a 30 minute water test of the leachlines or as otherwise recommended by the licensed septic tank contractor or septic pumper to ensure adequate working condition. The evaluation is necessary to ensure that the existing system is in adequate working condition. The resulting applicable inspection report shall be provided to the Department of Environmental Health for the first one year of project operation under this Use Permit modification. 21. For the first year of operation, provide an annual report detailing the number of customers, guests, employees, and the number of dogs to the Department of Environmental Health. (The report serves as a means to monitor peak wastewater flows for the first year of project operation.) 22. Install an effluent filter on the existing septic tank. The effluent filter acts like a physical barrier that prevents fur and other particulate matter from entering the existing dispersal field. Once the effluent filter is installed please schedule an inspection for verification of the filter, prior to the first annual report to the Department of Environmental Health. 22. For events where food is served or provided, the applicant or vendor shall contact the Department of Environmental Health for a temporary food facility permit. Contact Suzanne Lew at Temporary food facility permits are subject to a separate fees and application to the Department of Environmental Health. File No P dated 5/17/17, v4

17 23. For special and temporary events, portable toilets may be used on a limited basis and not to exceed two consecutive days in duration. FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE Contact Mac Bala at (408) for details regarding the following condition: 24. EVENTS: For any proposed event, please submit a fire permit if the following occur: 1. Any tents in excess of 400 sq. ft. that has three sides or 700 sq. ft. for only one side or more cooking booths 3. Carnivals or festivals. ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT Contact Rocelia Kmak at (408) for details regarding the following conditions: 25. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Encroachment Permit # was issued on June 27, 2016, to install County Standard B4A frontage improvements and a County Standard B5 driveway approach as required by the Conditions of Approval approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, The work authorized under the Encroachment Permit shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of the Roads and Airports Department prior to the annual report required by the Planning Office. 27. AVIGATION EASEMENT: Prior to the annual report required by the Planning Office, dedicate avigation easement for South County Airport. Submit current grant deed and Assessor s parcel map, or an acceptable location map, to the Roads and Airports Department for preparation of avigation easement. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Contact Mathew O Brien at (408) for details regarding the following conditions: 28. A building permit shall be applied for and obtained before installation of the 40- foot tall flagpole. A No Hazard Determination is not needed. File No P dated 5/17/17, v4

18 ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B - SITE PLAN

19 ATTACHMENT B - SITE PLAN

20 Cor:nty' of Santa Clara County Planning Office County Government Center, East lding' 7rh Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California (408) FAX (408) wr^rw. sccplanning, org ADDENDUM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, aleadagency may prepare an addendum to an adopted negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the ãescribed in Section calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative "onàitionr declaration have occurred. The purpose of this addendum is to evaluate whether modifications/refinements to the Use Permit and Architecture and Site Approval for the Operation Freedom Paws commercial dog kennel and training facility would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effecti or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2014Initial ve Declaration. File Number APN Date 9413-l6P-t6A-l6EA sl25l20l7 Name Commercial / Use Permit / Operation Freedom Express Owner Sunset Properties Inc. Use Permit Modification and Architectural and Site A Operation Freedom Paws Project Location The subject property (4.21 acres) is located in southern Santa Clara County, within the San Martin community' It is located at Llagas Avenue and is accessed through an existing driveway serving the existing buildings on site. Figure 1 shows the project location. Project Revisions Background: On August 28,2014,the Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration and approved a Use Permit and Architãcture and Site Approval (ÃSa) for Operation Freedom Paws to operate a commercial dog kennel and training facility. The exisìing facility operates within two 8,000 square-foot warehouse buildings and a2,400 squareì-foot ofice building, plus a 1,600 square-foot pole barn. The current operation is open Monday-Sunday ZOOam to 6:00PM, with training classes on Monday through Friday 9:004M to 10:00PM and Saturday and Sunday 9:004M to 9:00PM. Boarding is available 24 hours a-day, seven days per week. On November 10, 20l6,iheapplicant applied to the County of Santa Clara to modiff the Use Permit and ASA to accommodate the project changes described below. Board of Supervisors: Mike Vy'asserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Joe Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith I

21 County of Santa Clara County Planning Office County Government Center, East Wing, 7th FIoor 70 West Hedding Street San.Jose, California (4O8) FAX (408) www. sccplanning. org Project Modifications: The modifications to the original project, which were not analyzed in the Negative Declaration, are as follows l) an increase to the number ofclasses from four classes per day (20 clients each) to eight classes per day (40 clients each). The classes would be staggered throughout the day with the last class starting at7 pm. Weekday classes would be l-2 hours long, and weekend classes would be up to 2 andyz hours long. The maximum number of employees on-site at any given time would increase from seven to no more than eight. 2) an increase in dogs on-site at any given time from 70 to 250; 3) the addition of a 4O-foot flagpole; and 4) foui Weèkend eveñts per year with amþlified musió and no more than 200 peoþle. Analysis: Staff reviewed the Initial Study in conjunction with the proposed project modifications and determined that the proposed changes described in this addendum would not result in any new or significantly adverse environmental impacts identified for the previously adopted Negative Declaration. Analysis of the current project compared to the previously approved development is as follows for the specific resource areas that relate to the modifications: Aesthetics. The proposed 40-floot flagpole would be five feet above the 35-foot height requirements in the Al zoning district for accessory structures. However, the increase in height would not be significantly more on the property. With mature vegetation and existing structures on the site, the flag pole would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site nor would the flag pole, as conditioned, create a new source of substantial light that would adversely affect day or nighttime view of the area. Hence, there would be no new impact as a result of the proposed modifications. Trffic. For additional vehicle trips coming to and from the site as a result of the expansion from four training classes a day to eight training classes a day, increase in dogs from 70 to 250 dogs and four weekend events a year, an updated trip generation analysis was submitted by the applicant (see Attachment 1). The reports, reviewed by County Staff, concluded that the resulting increase in trip generation is approximately 1.5%o above existing volumes and would not increase traffic levels in the area or conflict with any adopted plan. Traffic impacts for a weekend event over Saturday and Sunday was not considered significant due to limited traffic during those times. Hence, there would be no new impacts as a result of the proposed modifications. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Joe Simitian County Executive: Jeflrey V. Smith 2

22 County of Santa Clara County Planning Office County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, Cafifornia (408) 299-5't'70 FAX (408) 288-9L98 www. sccplanning. org Noise. With the increase in the number of dogs on site throughout the day and with the introduction of amplified sound from events, there could be a potential increase in noise coming from the site. To assess potential noise impacts associated with the additional dogs on-site and noise generated from events on site, a Ñoise Study and a supplement to it was submitted by Edward Pack and Associates and peer-reviewed by County consultant, pãut gottar (See Attachment 2). Both reports concluded that dog barking noise levels wouldbe under the County's Noise standards. For outdoor dog barking noise, a worse-case scenario assuming 165 dogs to be in the training yard and barking at the same time was evaluated, and barking noise would not exceedìhe County's noise standards. Noise from events would also meet County standards as all amplified noise is proposed and condition to be situated under the partially open pole barn with associated speakers facing fìagàs Avenue. Sound from amplified music would be buffered from the closest sensitive receptor by the adjaceñt kennel building. Therefore, given the project operation, design and proposed conditions, the project would not result in a significant íjtilities and Service Systems: The project site is served by a public water utilþ' San Martin Water Works company, and an onsite septic system. With the increase in the number of dogs on-site along with events to o..u, th"." would be addifional water used and wastewater generated from the site. However, the project was reviewed by County staff and found that the project would not require, or result in the construction of new or expanded wastewaier treatment or off-site storm water drainage facilities. No structures are proposed as part of the expansion. Bacþround and Summary of Findings Per the California Environmental Act of 970 as amended), all perm Quality (ceqa) ( development its processed by the County Planning Office which requlre discretionary approval are SUbject to environmental revlew A lead agency IS required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be SUbstantially revised after public notice of its vailability has previously been glven pursuance to Section but to its adoption (CEQA Guideline S 507 J.5 Recirculation IS not required however, when , prlor (a) ). new proj ect revised are added ln response to written or verbal comments on the projects effects identified ln the proposed negative declaration which afe not new avoidable significant effects (CEQA Guidelines (c2). Prepared by: Valerie Negrete, Planner Approved by: Manira Sandhir, Principle Planner n \ Signature v rlr<jr4 Tuutô Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Joe Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith.

23 MIDDLE AVE SYCAMORE AVE MONTEREY RD 101 LLAGAS AVE SAN MARTIN AVE Parcel: File 9413 Figure 1 ± ,000 Feet This map created by the Santa Clara County Planning Office. The GIS data was compiled from various sources. While deemed reliable, the Planning Office assumes no liability. 5/15/2017 1:16:21 PM Y:\StaffReports\9413\9413_VicinityMapt.mxd 280 }þ237 Area of Interest }þ }þ87 }þ FIGURE 1

24 Trip Generation Analysis for Operation Freedom Paws Llagas Ave., San Martin CA APN June 2,2016 Prepared by: Kristi Abrams, T.E., License No Resuesú.' To modify the Conditional Use Permit to allow up to 250 dogs on-site with the flexibility to shift the number of allowable dogs between classes based on the need of Operation Freedom Paws. (Of note: During the original process and at the Planning Commission public hearing the applicant was advised to include in the Conditional Use Permit to request the likely number of dogs at start up of the business and that at the one year Conditional Use Permit review the applicant could request to modify the CUP to a higher number of dogs.) Proiect Description: A Conditional Use Permit was obtained in August ol 2014 for boarding of dogs and training of clienuservice dog teams at Llagas Avenue by Operation Freedom Paws, a 501 (c) 3 non-profit, to empower veterans and others with disabilities to restore their own independence. The clients are taught how to train their own service dogs. This is done at no cost to the client for the training, the dog, supplies for the dog and veterinarian care while the client is in training. Dogs in the program primarily come from rescue shelters. The project is comprised of a dog training facility and boarding for day care, overnight and dogs waiting to be placed with a client. The boarding and day care provides much needed funds to complete Operation Freedom Paws mission to provide not only training but all support services, such as food and veterinary care, at no cost to the clients. The majority of Operation Freedom Paws veteran clients are well below the State average medium income level. Clients in training are primarily disabled veterans and their service dogs. However, Operation Freedom Paws also provides training to disabled non-veterans clienvdog teams and those desiring training for the pet. More information about the program can be obtained from their website at 1 ATTACHMENT - 1

25 As requests for training and boarding have significantly increased, Operation Freedom Paws is requesting a modification to their Conditional Use Permit to allow an increased number of dogs for training and boarding. Kennels will be provided in varying shapes and sizes to accommodate the client's needs. For example, some multi-dog families will be housed in one kennel appropriate for their size. Kenneled dogs include boarders and those dogs waiting to be placed with a client. The dogs housed at the site are crated inside during the evening. A minimum of two staff members will be at the site to care for the boarded dogs twenty-four hours daily. While multiple classes may occur each day, the classes will be staggered throughout the day with the first class commencing at the earliest of 9:00 a.m. and the last class commencing at 7:00 p.m. Week day classes last between one to two hours. Saturday classes last for up to two and a half hours. The existing site is located at Llagas Avenue, directly south of Llagas Creek and Recology transfer site, southeast of the Santa Clarâ County - San Martin Water District Waste Water Treatment Plant and directly east of an auto salvage yard. Current Operations Classes are held on Tuesday mornings, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings, and Saturday mornings at the facility. Boarding is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Proposed Modified Operations: Due to the success of the program, both training and boarding demand has steadily increased. The applicant, founder Mary Cortani, is requesting to modify the Conditional Use Permit such that the maximum combined number of dogs with clients being trained and those boarded is 250. (Note: The Department of Health Kennel permit does not specify a maximum number of dogs on site.) 2 ATTACHMENT - 1

26 Trip Generation - Proposed Modified Operations: Assumptions:. Each client drives separately (Actually 20-25o/o of the clients car pool with each other). A significant portion of the training program clientele work, so many of the class times start off peak of the roadway. Volunteers and staff drive separately. Clients arrive 0-15 minutes prior to class o Clients leave 0-30 minutes after class. Class staff/volunteers arrive minutes before class r Class staff/volunteers leave minutes after class o One delivery vehicle occurs per day. One vehicle per day to provide building service, septic service, water review, other miscellaneous delivery, bring in new client dogs, etc. WORST CASE TRIP GENERATION* AM Peak of 37 " Trip reduction measures in the öusíness plan and actual carpooling by clients, as historically experienced, will reduce úñese numbers. Trip Distribution: 40% north on Llagas to Monterey to Tenant to north Highway % south on Llagas to San Martin to south Highway % north on Llagas to Monterey to Morgan Hill 10% south on Llagas to San Martin to Monterey to Gilroy 3 ATTACHMENT - 1

27 APPENDIX - trip calculations Glasses - Typical makeup clients per class with 1 staff and 1 volunteer Typically, in the proposed operations, up to three classes may occur at one time. While these classes may start at the same time at least one would typically end at a different times from the other two. With the exception of one Monday night class, all classes typically start off the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. All classes end outside the peak hour of the roadway. Typical weekday trip generation for typical high volume class day (worst case) Using a typical weekday seven class day with single classes beginning at 9:00am, 10:00am, 1 :00pm, and double classes beginning at 6:00pm and 7:00pm I classes x 30 students 240 x2 = I staff* 8x2= nteers* Total *Some staff and volunteers also assist with the boarding Maximum 512 daily weekday trips attributed to classes. Weekend daily trips are not anticipated to exceed weekday trips. Approximately 37 inbound trips occur during the weekday AM peak (30 clients, 4 staff and 3 volunteers) of the roadway and 67 inbound PM peak (60 clients, 4 staff and 3 volunteers). No outbound trips are anticipated during the AM or PM peak of the roadway. (Note: Approximately 20o/o of the existing clients carpool. If ls,s expected with the proposed modified project although not considered in this analysis.) 4 ATTACHMENT - 1

28 Boarding - Typical Makeup Volume of dogs vary - higher numbers occur when school is out, corresponding with an increase of vacation travel during that time (holidays and summer). Typical staff shifts 4 staff/volunteer -7am to 4pm 3 staff/volunteer - 8am to Spm 3 staff/volunteer - 9am to 6Pm 4 staff/volunteer - 4pm to 1 1pm 2 staff/volunteer - 11pm to 7am 7 AM peak hour trips and 7 PM peak hour trips Boarding drop off and pick up occurs throughout the day and into the evening. The number of dogs boarded does not directly correlate to the number of boarding clients as many bring multiple dogs for boarding. According to the 2012 U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Source Book, on average, 1.6 dogs are owner per household that has dogs. The dogs are boarded for a varying amount of time ranging from daycare to three weeks or more with a typicalstay ranging from 4 to 9 days. Additionally, twelve to fourteen of dogs boarded are owned by Operation Freedom Paws and are awaiting placement. To determine a probable worst case scenario the following assumptions are made:. 250 dogs boarded for an average stay of six days. o (250-12)11.6 (average dogs per dog household) = 149 households boarding dogs. 149 x 4 (in/out to drop off and in/out to pick up) over seven days = 596 one way trips days average stay = 85 daily in and out trips spread between 7 am to 10 pm (Drop off/pick up after 7pm by appointment only) o The facility is seeing slightly more drop off from 7-9 am and pick up from 3-7 pm with slightly more dogs dropped off on Friday and picked up on Monday.. 85/15 (spread over fifteen hours) = 6 one way trips per hour. o Multiply by 3 to allow for the additional pickup during the morning peak Monday am and evening peak hour of the roadway pm. o Boarding picuup drop off adds 18 am and 18 pm peak hour trips Approximately 30 daily trips attributed to staff for boarding with 7 am and 7 pm 5 ATTACHMENT - 1

29 Drop off/pick up service is available from Operation Freedom Paws which would reduce trips - (this option not included in trip estimates) It is anticipated that business support (mail, deliveries, miscellaneous) and visitors would add no more than approximately 10 daily trips with no more than 2 during each of the AM and PM peak of the roadway. Thus boarding at maximum capacity of 250 dogs with no training classes provided produces 125 daily trips with 27 in the am and 27 in the pm. Worst case is 8 classes with 240 dogs and ten additional dogs owned and boarded by Operation Freedom Paws to be placed with clients. The dogs boarded in this case would add no additional traffic to the roadway, therefore, the maximum of I classes per day govern for the worst case scenario. 6 ATTACHMENT - 1

30 ATTACHMENT - 1

31 ATTACHMENT - 1

32 ATTACHMENT - 1

33 ATTACHMENT - 1

34 ATTACHMENT - 1

35 ATTACHMENT - 1

36 ATTACHMENT - 1

37 ATTACHMENT - 1

38 ATTACHMENT - 1

39 ATTACHMENT - 1

40 ATTACHMENT - 1

41 ATTACHMENT - 1

42 ATTACHMENT - 1

43 ATTACHMENT - 1

44 ATTACHMENT - 1

45 ATTACHMENT - 1

46 ATTACHMENT - 1

47 ATTACHMENT - 1

48 ATTACHMENT - 1

49 ATTACHMENT - 1

50 ATTACHMENT - 1

51 ATTACHMENT - 1

52 ATTACHMENT - 1

53 ATTACHMENT - 1

54 ATTACHMENT - 1

55 ATTACHMENT - 1

56 ATTACHMENT - 1

57 ATTACHMENT - 1

58 ATTACHMENT - 1

59 ATTACHMENT - 1

60 ATTACHMENT - 1

61 ATTACHMENT - 1

62 ATTACHMENT - 1

63 ATTACHMENT - 1

64 ATTACHMENT - 1

65 ATTACHMENT - 1

66 ATTACHMENT - 1

67 ATTACHMENT - 1

68 ATTACHMENT - 1

69 ATTACHMENT - 1

70 ATTACHMENT - 1

71 ATTACHMENT - 1

72 ATTACHMENT - 1

73 ATTACHMENT - 1

74 ATTACHMENT - 1

75 ATTACHMENT - 1

76 ATTACHMENT - 1

77 ATTACHMENT - 1

78 ATTACHMENT - 1

79 ATTACHMENT - 1

80 ATTACHMENT - 1

81 ATTACHMENT - 1

82 ATTACHMENT - 1

83 ATTACHMENT - 1

84 ATTACHMENT - 1

85 ATTACHMENT - 1

86 ATTACHMENT - 1

87 ATTACHMENT - 1

88 ATTACHMENT - 1

89 ATTACHMENT - 1

90 ATTACHMENT - 1

91 ATTACHMENT - 1

92 ATTACHMENT - 1

93 ATTACHMENT - 1

94 ATTACHMENT - 1

95 ATTACHMENT - 1

96 ATTACHMENT - 1

97 ATTACHMENT - 1

98 ATTACHMENT - 1

99 ATTACHMENT - 1

100 ATTACHMENT - 1

101 ATTACHMENT - 1

102 ATTACHMENT - 1

103 ATTACHMENT - 1

104 ATTACHMENT - 1

105 ATTACHMENT - 1

106 ATTACHMENT - 1

107 ATTACHMENT - 1

108 ATTACHMENT - 1

109 ATTACHMENT - 1

110 ATTACHMENT - 1

111 ATTACHMENT - 1

112 ATTACHMENT - 1

113 ATTACHMENT - 1

114 ATTACHMENT - 1

115 ATTACHMENT - 1

116 ATTACHMENT - 1

117 ATTACHMENT - 1

118 ATTACHMENT - 1

119 ATTACHMENT - 1

120 ATTACHMENT - 1

121 ATTACHMENT - 1

122 ATTACHMENT - 1

123 EDWARD L. PACKASSOCIATES. INC HAMILTON AVENUE SUITE 26 SAN JOSE, CA Aco u sti c a I Co n s u lta nt s TEL: FAX: wvnv. packassociates. com March ll,2016 Project No Ms. Mary Cortani Operation Freedom Paws Llagas Avenue San Martin, CA Subject: Noise Analysis of Increased Dog Capacity, Operation Freedom Paws, Llagas Avenueo Santa Clara County Dear Ms. Cortani This report will provide you with a supplemental analysis of dog barking noise for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed increased capacity of dogs at the facility. The noise data presented in this report were derived from the original noise study for the project. The original study evaluated the project-generated noise levels under a capacity scenario of 70 dogs on the site, with 24 dogs in the outdoor Utility Training Yard. The proposed :- ) CUP application is for a total of 250 doþs on site, with up to 165 dogs in the Utility \---,--.,:-"- Training Yard. This study analyzes a volume of dogs outdoor yard at one time, under the same barking scenario as previously number of dogs. aàãlyzed but with the proportional greater Table I, belowo provides the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance noise limits applicable to the project, the noise levels at the most impacted residential properties and at the King residence along Murphy Avenue under the cunent application and under the proposed application. The number of dogs shown is for the outdoor area only. The remainder of the dogs will be indoors. ATTACHMENT - 2

124 a The increase in noise level from the original scenario to the new scenario is calculated using the formula: AdB + l0logls(i65/24) Thus, the increase in the noise levels, with the exception of the L*u* value, is +8d8. Note that the L.u" is a I second duration noise level and is a result of the loudest bark at any given time. As shown above, the noise levels generated by a group of dogs barking in the outdoor Utility Training Yard, regardless of the number of dogs under either scenario, will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance standards. In addition to the evaluation of project-generated noise per the Noise Ordinance, the longer term 24-hour average noise exposure (Day-Night Level) used by the Noise Element of the General Plan generated by the proposed greater volume of dogs was evaluated. TABLE I Project-Generated Noise Levels Under Original Application (24 Dogs) L-u* L2 Lg Lzs Lso Noise Ordinance Limits 80 dba 75 dba 70 dba 65 dba 60 dba Llagas Ave. 59 dba 51 dba 44 dba 39 dba 36 dba Murphy Ave. 57 dba 48 dba 4I dba 36 dba 33 dba King Residence 52 dba 36 dba 29 dba 24 dba 2I dba Project-Generated Noise Levels Under New Application (165 Dogs) Llagas Ave. 59 dba 69 dba 52 dba 47 dba 44 dba Murphy Ave 57 dba 56 dba 49 dba 44 dba 41 dba King Residence 52 dba 44 dba 37 dba 32 dba 29 dba ATTACHMENT - 2

125 -3- As with the short-term noise levels, the DNL increase is also I db. Table II, below, provides the General Plan noise limit, the project-generated noise exposures under the current scenario and under the proposed scenario, and the resultant changes in the ambient noise environments. As shown in Table II, the project-generated noise exposures will be within the 55 db DNL limit of the Santa Clara County Noise Element of the General Plan. In addition, the project-generated noise exposures will not add to the existing noise environments at the residential receptor locations in the vicinity of the project. This results in a Less Than Significant noise impact, per the California Environmental Quality Act. The project-generated noise levels and noise exposures will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance and Noise Element. Therefore, noise mitigation measures will not be required. TABLE II Project'Generated Noise Exposures (24 Dogs) Receptor Noise Limit Project Noise Existing Amb. ^db Llagas Ave 55 db DNL 30 db DNL 56 db DNL 0dB Murphy Ave. 55 db DNL 26 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB King Residence 55 db DNL 16 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB Project-Generated Noise Exposures (165 Dogs) Llagas Ave. 55 db DNL 38 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB Murphy Ave. 55 db DNL 34 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB King Residence 55 db DNL 24 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB ATTACHMENT - 2

126 -4- For informational purposes, the following section will provide you with the calculated noise reductions if a noise control barrier was to be constructed along the north and west sides of the outdoor Utility Training Yard. The noise levels were calculated for the King residence only. 6 ft. high: - 6 db Tft.high:-7dB I ft. high: - I db 9 fr. high: - 8 db 10 ft. high: - 9 db The difference between - 6dB and -9dB would be barely detectable to the human ear A 6 decibel overall noise reduction is approximately equivalent to a 25%o decrease in the loudness of the dog barks. This is a noticeable amount but it is usually not enough to be worthwhile. Noise barriers can be constructed of any somewhat heavy material (1" thick wood, masonry, earth berm, etc.) and must be air-tight for the life of the barrier. The report presents the results of a supplemental noise analysis for a proposed new Conditional Use Permit for the Operation Freedom Paws facility at Llagas Avenue in Santa Clara County. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please contact me Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrev K. Pack President ATTACHMENT - 2

127 January 27, 2016 Ms. Valerie Negrete Associate Planner County of Santa Clara Planning & Development Department Transmitted via Subject: Peer reviews of the Noise Assessment Study for Operation Freedom Paws (Edward Pack Associates, July 16, 2014, Project #46-051) and Analysis of Increased Dog Capacity for Freedom Paws (Edward Pack Associates, March 11, 2016, Project # ). Dear Ms. Negrete, Pursuant to the request of Santa Clara County, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) has conducted comprehensive peer reviews of the above referenced documents. The purposes of these reviews were to ascertain if noise impacts associated with the project had been properly evaluated relative to both Santa Clara County and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria, in accordance with industry-standard practices. This letter contains the results of BAC s peer reviews. In addition to conducting the peer review included in this letter, BAC also conducted additional analysis based on feedback from Santa Clara County. That additional analysis follows BAC s peer reviews of the Edward Pack Associates assessments. Peer Review of July 16, 2014 Noise Assessment The July 16, 2014 Noise Study Assessment prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates Inc. was based on a proposal for a 50 dog kennel and training facility at Llagas Avenue in Santa Clara County. BAC has the following comments on the 2014 study: 1. The section titled Background Information on Acoustics is clearly presented and contains adequate information to inform the reader of the acoustical terminology used in the noise study report and to provide a fundamental understanding of human perception of noise and likely reactions to noise of various levels. No revisions to this section are warranted. 2. The section containing Noise Standards, Goals and Policies correctly lists the applicable Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance standards. The rationale for only applying the daytime noise level standards to this project is provided (dogs will only be outside during daytime hours), and the 5 db upward adjustment to the Noise Ordinance limits due to two zoning districts abutting is supported. The Santa Clara County General Plan noise standards are also presented in this section, and the noise level limits 3551 Bankhead Road Loomis, CA Phone: (916) Fax: (916) BACNOISE.COM ATTACHMENT - 2

128 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 2 applicable at the nearest residences to the project site are properly reported. No revisions to this section are warranted. 3. The CEQA discussion pertaining to the requirement that a project must cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels for a finding of significant impact is accurate. However, the support for the statement that Nosie Ordinance values, which are used primarily for noise annoyance, are not evaluated for CEQA purposes, is not provided. This turns out to be a moot point because the noise assessment did evaluate impacts relative to both the General Plan noise standards as well as the County Noise Ordinance standards. 4. The reference for the statements that the County of Santa Clara considers significant noise impacts to occur if a project would cause DNL levels at sensitive receptors to increase by five db DNL or more where the noise levels would remain normally acceptable, and that the County considers significant noise impacts to occur if a project would cause DNL levels at sensitive receptors to increase by three db DNL or more where the noise levels would equal or exceed normally acceptable levels, is not provided. However, these criteria are consistent with industry standards and are considered suitable for the evaluation of the significance of project-related noise level increases for this project. 5. The section providing the Site and Project Description is clearly presented. However, it appears that the locations of the outdoor dog training activities are not consistent with what was provided in the project site plan. The additional analysis provided by BAC following this peer review includes consideration of outdoor training activities at the locations identified on the project site plan. BAC created Figure 1 to illustrate the location of the project site relative to the nearest residences. The two residential receptors evaluated in the Pack analysis represent the two closest residences. As a result, provided noise impacts do not occur at the two nearest residences, impacts at more distant residences are not anticipated. Of critical importance in this section of the Pack analysis is the statement that, because the dogs will be trained as services dogs for veterans, the dogs will be trained not to bark. The annoyance caused by this facility to the nearest residential neighbors will very likely hinge on the ability of the dog trainers to control barking. BAC staff has observed well trained dog handlers controlling the barking of groups of dogs during outdoor training exercises at other facilities, so achieving the objective of minimal barking is considered to be feasible. 6. The section describing the Existing Nosie Environments without the Project provides sufficient information on pre-project ambient noise conditions such that noise impacts of the project can be evaluated relative to the reported baseline conditions. The number and locations of noise measurement sites are appropriate for the setting of the project site, and the selection of the quietest day of the week for conducting the ambient monitoring (Sunday), indicates that the assessments of project impacts relative to ambient conditions are likely conservative. The pertinent noise measurement results are clearly provided in both the text and appendices. No revisions to this section are warranted. ATTACHMENT - 2

129 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 3 7. The section describing Project Generated Noise Levels contains the pertinent information required to reasonably ascertain the noise generation of the project. Specifically, the normalized listing of dog bark noise levels provides a logical range of dog sizes and corresponding bark levels. BAC file data for barking dog noise emissions collected for various kennel projects over recent years is consistent with the reference noise levels provided in the subject study. The use of the 6 db decrease per doubling of distance from the noise source is appropriate given the size of the outdoor training area relative to the distances to the nearest residential neighbors. The exclusion of the noise reduction provided by excess ground attenuation and atmospheric absorption over distance provides conservative prediction results, as actual noise levels will be even lower at the nearest residences. The reported noise reduction provided by the steel building is reasonable. However, it is BAC s professional opinion that the steel structure would likely provide greater than the assumed 5 db net reduction in barking dog sound levels. The noise study assumption that the net noise attenuation of that building would only be 5 db after factoring in reverberation conditions within the building is believed to be very conservative. 8. The predicted barking dog noise levels provided in Table IV contain some minor computational errors, but those errors do not affect the conclusions of the study regarding compliance with Santa Clara County noise standards or the potential noise impacts of the project. Specifically, the value of 57 db L max predicted at Murphy Avenue does not contain the +3 db adjustment for reflections off of the steel building in the direction of this residences described in the 6 th paragraph on page 15 of the report. The spreadsheets shown in Appendix C include the +3 db correction for this reflection in the computation of hourly average noise levels (L eq ), and day/night average levels (DNL), but it appears that correction was not applied to the computation of L max levels. As noted previously, this change has no bearing on the conclusions of the study, as the correctly predicted L max would still be 20 db below the County noise standard, whereas the level reported was 23 db below the maximum noise standard. As such, this is a very minor computational error. The end of the 3 rd paragraph on Page 14 of the noise study assumes 24 dog barks per hour in the outdoor play area, at a duration of 1 second per bark. The resulting 24 seconds of barking during the hour would not reach the level of 1 minute/hour, so the County s L 2 noise standard, which represents 1 minute of noise generation per hour, would not be applicable. Similarly, the County s standards applicable to noise generated 5 min/hr (L 8 ), 15 min/hr (L 25 ), and 30 min/hr (L 50 ), would technically not be applicable to the dog barks. As a result, the predicted L n values shown in Table IV would more appropriately be labeled N/A, for not applicable, based on the assumed number of dog barks per hour. Nonetheless, the predicted L n levels reported in Table IV are all well below the County s noise level limits. Therefore, the conservative but unnecessary inclusion of analysis relative to the County s L n noise standards, which indicate full compliance with those ATTACHMENT - 2

130 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 4 standards, is further support for the project s findings of less than significant noise impacts at the nearest residences. Even if the assumption that there would only be 24 seconds of barking per hour is understated, and even if only the largest/loudest dogs were to bark for a far greater percentage of the hour than assumed in the noise study, BAC s independent analysis indicates that the County s noise ordinance limits would still be satisfied at the nearest residences by a considerable margin. That independent analysis is provided following this peer review. 9. The Project-Generated Noise Exposures in terms of DNL are reported in Table V on page 16 of the report. The predicted DNL values of 30 and 26 db at the nearest residences to the south and east, respectively, match the DNL values computed in the spreadsheets contained in Appendix C of the Pack analysis when the outdoor and indoor dog bark DNL values are combined. BAC independently verified the accuracy of the computations, and concurs with the noise study findings that the dog bark DNL levels would be well below both the County s 55 db DNL noise level limit, and the measured ambient noise levels of 56 to 59 DNL at the nearest residences. 10. In summary, BAC agrees with the Conclusions of the subject noise study as summarized on Page 17 of the report. Specifically, BAC agrees with the conclusions that the sound generated by dogs barking at the project site would be well within compliance with both the Santa Clara County General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest residences, and that if/when dog barks are audible at the two nearest residences, they will be audible at sound levels well below measured existing ambient conditions. Peer Review of Edward Pack Associates March 11, 2016 Supplemental Noise Analysis of Increased Capacity Operations Whereas the July 16, 2014 Pack Noise Study assessed impacts associated with 50 dogs being boarded at the project site (with 50% outdoors at any given time), the March 11, 2016 analysis evaluated impacts associated with increased capacity five times greater than that evaluated in the original 2014 study. Specifically, the applicant s current proposal is for a facility permitted to board up to 250 dogs at a time, with as many as 165 dogs in the outdoor yard at one time. BAC has the following comments on the supplemental analysis of the expanded capacity project: 11. The mathematical computation shown at the top of Page 2 of the supplemental analysis, which was used to scale the increase in noise levels associated with an increase from 24 to 165 dogs outside at a time, is correct. Specifically, the computed theoretical 8 db increase due to the increased number of dogs is correct provided all other variables pertaining to the sizes of the barking dogs and the frequency at which they were assumed to bark remain constant. ATTACHMENT - 2

131 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page BAC concurs that, while the frequency of dog barks would increase due to the increased number of dogs outdoors at a time, the maximum noise generation of individual dog barks would not change. Therefore, unless two or more dogs barked at exactly the same time, the maximum noise levels (L max ), predicted in the original analysis would still hold for the increased capacity analysis. Table 1 indicates that predicted maximum noise levels associated with dog barks would be at least 20 db below the Santa Clara County maximum noise level limit of 80 db L max at the nearest residences. Given the fact that there would be nearly 7 times more dogs outdoors under the increased capacity operations (165 dogs), the likelihood of two or more dogs barking at the same time increases to the point where such occurrences can no longer be considered improbable. However, it would take an improbably large number of even the largest/loudest dogs barking at precisely the same moment to approach exceedance of the County s noise level standards. Specifically, if 2, 5, 10, or even 20 German Shepherds barked at exactly the same time, the increase in maximum noise levels at the nearest residence would increase by only 3 to 13 db. The resulting maximum noise levels would still be well below the County s maximum noise level limit of 80 db L max. So while it is BAC s professional opinion that the likelihood of having 2 or more dog barks occur at precisely the same time would increase appreciably with a 7-fold increase in the number of dogs outside together, it is also BAC s professional opinion that such occurrences would not result in exceedance of the County s maximum noise level standards at the nearest residences. 13. Regarding the computation of L n values associated with the increased capacity project, provided the assumption that the number of hourly occurrences of dog barks would increase proportionally to the increased number of dogs, then the computed increase of 8 db would be correct. If, however, the bark-trigger stimuli associated an increased number of dogs present in the outdoor area at any time results in a disproportionate increase in the probability of barking, then an increase in overall noise levels in excess of 8 db could result. Given 165 dogs outside at the same time, it is entirely possible that there would be more than a 7-fold increase in the number of hourly barks. Building on the original noise study, the supplemental noise analysis assumes that each dog would essentially bark one time during the hour, at one second per bark. 165 barks per hour would equate to 2.8 minutes of barking per hour if the dogs are not barking concurrently, and a smaller duration if they are barking concurrently. Based on that assumed duration of barking, the applicable County noise standard would be the L 2, which applies to sources of noise which are present for at least 1 minute per hour but less than 5 minutes per hour. The County s daytime L 2 standard is 75 db. Because even the loudest dog barks would be 15 db lower than the 75 db standard, BAC concurs with the conclusion of the supplemental noise analysis that a 7-fold increase in barking would still not result in exceedance of the County s noise standards. ATTACHMENT - 2

132 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 6 But if the increased number of dogs increased the bark stimuli such that the increase in hourly barking was more than 7-fold relative to the original analysis, an increase in noise levels at the nearest residences would result. In a hypothetical, and likely beyond worstcase example of a 20-fold increase in the number of dog barks associated with the increased capacity of the facility, the theoretical number of seconds per hour during which dogs would be barking would be 480 seconds, or 8 minutes out of the hour. Given that unlikely duration, the applicable County noise standard would be the L 8, which applies to sources of noise present for at least 5 minutes per hour, but less than 15 minutes per hour. The County s daytime L 8 standard is 70 db. Because even the loudest dog barks would be 10 db lower than the 70 db standard, even under this unlikely scenario of 8 minutes of dog barks per hour, the County s Noise Ordinance standards would still not be exceeded at the nearest residences. Conclusions of BAC s Peer Review of the Original and Supplemental Noise Studies For both the original and increased capacity analyses, this peer review has evaluated the appropriateness of the noise standards used to conduct the impact assessments, the ambient noise measurement equipment, methodology and results, assumptions regarding project noise generation, computational analysis based on those assumptions, and conclusions regarding the potential noise impacts of the project relative to the applicable County and CEQA criteria. After conducting such a peer review, only minimal and minor computational discrepancies were identified and those differences had no effect on the conclusions of the analysis. Even with increasing the theoretical frequency during which dog barks might occur at the project site relative to the assumptions contained in the subject noise studies, BAC concludes that the project noise generation would still be well within compliance with both the County s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards for acceptable noise exposure at residential land uses. Ultimately, the frequency of barking occurring at the project site will depend on the ability of the staff to control such barking. But the setbacks between the project site and nearest residential neighbors is such that, even if barking were to occur at a greater frequency than anticipated in the noise studies, exceedance of the County s noise standards at those nearest residences is not anticipated, and noise impacts would not be identified. Supplemental Analysis Prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) in Response to Santa Clara County Questions In response to input from Santa Clara County Staff, BAC prepared additional analysis of barking dog noise levels received at the nearest residences for additional scenarios. The specific scenarios for which BAC conducted additional analysis are as follows: Assessment of varying numbers of dogs barking inside the kennel building with doors of the kennel facility both open and closed. ATTACHMENT - 2

133 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 7 Assessment of varying numbers of dogs barking outside within the 3 training areas identified on the project site plan. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site and nearest residences. As noted previously, the two nearest residences to the facility are located immediately south and east of the project site, at distances of 300 and 800 feet from the nearest on-site structure. The additional analysis of the scenarios outlined above focuses on these two nearest residences. Figure 2 shows the project site plan, including the locations of the three outdoor training areas (agility yard and two covered exercise yards). Figure 2 also shows the locations of the main indoor training facility and the indoor kennel area, which also serves as an overflow training area. Figure 3 shows oblique aerial images of the project site from all four primary compass directions. To independently predict the noise generation of the proposed project, BAC developed assumptions regarding the numbers of dogs in each location (outdoor and indoor), as well as the number of times each of those dogs could be expected to bark in any given hour. Distances from the three outdoor training areas to the two nearest residences were scaled using Google Earth. Table 1 shows the various scenarios evaluated, including assumptions pertaining to the number of dogs barking, the locations of the dogs (indoors or outdoors), the position of the building doors (open or closed), and the predicted average and maximum noise levels at the nearest residences for each scenario. As noted in the Edward Pack Analysis, the following noise standards are applied to this project at the nearby residential receiver locations: Individual Maximum (Lmax): 80 db Lmax daytime, 70 db Lmax nighttime Hourly Average (median): 60 db Leq/L50 daytime, 50 db Leq/L50 nighttime Day/Night Average Level: 56 db Ldn South Residence, 59 db Ldn East Residence The sound levels reported in Table 1 are color coded as follows: Green: Purple: Red: Orange: No exceedance of either daytime, nighttime, or Ldn standard. Exceedance of the Daytime noise level standard Exceedance of the Nighttime noise standard Exceedance of the Ldn standard ATTACHMENT - 2

134 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 8 Scenario Dog Location 1 Table 1 Predicted Freedom Paws Noise Levels at Nearest Residences as a Function of Number of Dogs Barking Simultaneously and Total Dog Barking During an Hour Maximum Hourly Average Door Position 2 # of Dogs 3 Simultaneous Barks 4 East Residence (Lmax, dba) South Residence Hourly Barks/dog 5 East Residence (Leq, dba) South Residence Day/Night Average Level (Ldn, dba) East South Residence Residence 1 Outside N/A Outside N/A Outside N/A Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Open Inside Open Inside Open Combined Closed Combined Closed Combined Closed Combined Open Combined Open Combined Open Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) 1. Refers to analysis of noise levels while the dogs are outside during training or inside during training/kenneling periods. 2. Refers to the position of the metal doors of the building see Figure 3 for door locations. For a conservative assessment of the noise reduction of the building after accounting for interior reverberation, it was assumed that the building only provides 5 db of barking dog noise reduction. With doors open, it was assumed that the noise would be 10 db higher. 3. Total proposed capacity of the facility is 250 dogs. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that half of the dogs would be outside during daytime hours and half inside. During nighttime hours, all of the dogs would be inside with kennel doors closed (scenarios 7 9). 4. The number of dogs barking simultaneously is required to compute the instantaneous maximum noise level at the nearby receptors. For this analysis, it was assumed that 1 dog of each breed size would bark simultaneously, with that number multiplied by the number of simultaneous occurrences. 5. The hourly barks per dog represents the number of theoretical times each dog would bark over the course of a 60 minute period. For example, with 125 dogs outside barking 30 times per hour, the total number of hourly dog barks would be 3,750 barks. This number is not considered likely, but was included in the analysis to demonstrate the relationship between number of barks and average noise levels received at the nearest residences. ATTACHMENT - 2

135 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 9 Analysis of Table 1 data Instantaneous Maximum Noise Levels (Lmax) The Table 1 data indicate that the County s 80 db Lmax daytime noise level standard would not be exceeded at any of the nearby residences even with kennel doors open and up to 80 dogs barking at precisely the same moment. As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s 80 db Lmax daytime noise level standard at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking concurrently. During nighttime hours, the Table 1 data indicate that the County s 70 db Lmax nighttime noise level standard would be exceeded with doors open and more than 24 dogs barking simultaneously. However, the doors of the kennel and training buildings are proposed to be closed during nighttime hours and no outdoor training activities are proposed to occur during the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am. As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s 70 db Lmax nighttime noise level standard at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking concurrently. Hourly Average Noise Levels (Leq) The County does not technically have an hourly average noise level limit. The County s noise level limits are graduated based on the duration of time out of the hour during which the barking were to occur. For a more conservative approach to noise impact assessment for this project, BAC applied the County s median (L 50 ) noise standard to the predicted average hourly noise levels generated by multiple dogs barking over the course of an hour. The Table 1 data indicate that the County s 60 db Leq/L50 daytime noise level standard would not be exceeded at any of the nearby residences even with kennel doors open and each of the 250 dogs dog barking an unrealistic 30 times in the same hour (30 barks/hour x 250 dogs = 7,500 total barks in an hour). As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s 60 db Leq/L50 daytime noise level standard at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking repetitively throughout the course of the hour. During nighttime hours, the Table 1 data indicate that the County s 50 db Leq/L50 nighttime noise level standard would be exceeded under numerous scenarios should multiple barks occur during nighttime hours. However, no outdoor training activities are proposed to occur during the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am, so the two exceedances identified at the south residence for Scenarios 2 and 3 would not occur. Furthermore, kennel doors are proposed to be closed during nighttime hours, so the exceedances identified under scenarios 10 through 12, 16 and 17 would not occur. Due to high reverberation conditions within the kennel buildings identified by the Edward Pack report, nighttime noise levels at the Southern residence could exceed 50 db Leq/L50 of each of the 250 dogs boarded at this facility were to bark in excess of 20 times each during the same hour. This equates to 5,000 barks originating within the kennel building during nighttime hours when the dogs would normally be sleeping, which is a highly unlikely scenario. As a result, exceedance of the County s nighttime noise level median (L50) noise standard at any of the nearby residences is considered extremely unlikely. Nonetheless, should concerns be ATTACHMENT - 2

136 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 10 expressed by the nearby residents regarding nighttime barking from within the kennel, BAC recommends that the following measures be considered: 1. Nighttime noise monitoring could be conducted at the location where the concerns are being expressed to specifically quantify the noise generation of the dogs within the kennels during nighttime hours. The period to be monitored should coincide with a period of heavy kennel occupancy. 2. Sound absorbing panels could be installed within the kennel building to reduce overall reverberation characteristics and lower noise levels inside the kennel building. Lower noise levels inside the kennel building would translate into lower noise levels in the community. 3. Additional supervision could be utilized during nighttime hours to ensure that the boarded dogs do not bark uncontrollably. Day/Night Average Noise Levels (Ldn) The Table 1 data indicate that the applicable Ldn standards would not be exceeded at any of the nearby residences even with kennel doors open and multiple dog barks during any given hour. As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s Ldnbased noise level limits at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking. Conclusions: Both BAC s peer review of the Edward Pack Associates noise studies and BAC s independent analysis conclude that noise generated by this project, even with somewhat unrealistically high assumptions pertaining to the number of dogs barking at the site, would be satisfactory relative to Santa Clara County noise level standards. Nonetheless, should concerns be expressed regarding barking dog noise levels originating at this facility, the additional noise mitigation measures described above could be implemented to further control barking dog sound levels if determined necessary. This concludes BAC s review and comments regarding the environmental noise analysis for the Freedom Paws Kennel located in Santa Clara County, CA. Please contact BAC at (916) or paulb@bacnoise.com with any comments or questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Paul Bollard President, INCE Board Certified ATTACHMENT - 2

137 Figure 1 Project Site, Surrounding Land Uses, and Distances to Nearest Residences Freedom Paws Project Santa Clara County, California Food Processing Plant Transfer Station Car Donation Facility Project Site Murphy Avenue Industrial Manufacturing = Nearest Residences ATTACHMENT - 2

138 Figure 2 Freedom Paws Project Site Plan ATTACHMENT - 2

139 Figure 3 Freedom Paws Project Aerial Photos View looking East View looking North View looking West View looking South ATTACHMENT - 2

140 EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: SUITE 26 FAX: SAN JOSE, CA Ms. Mary Cortani Operation Freedom Paws Llagas Avenue San Martin, CA April 20, 2017 Project No Subject: Live Music Sound Analysis, Operation Freedom Paws, Llagas Avenue, Santa Clara County Dear Ms. Cortani: This report will provide you with the results of a live music sound analysis for special events at the Operation Freedom Paws facility in Santa Clara County. The music sound levels were evaluated against the standards of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance. The special events are expected to use live music (bands) to perform for moderate sized crowds as background music during functions. For the purposes of this study, the live band sound level data used in this analysis was a classic rock/blues band performing at a casual outdoor public function at a winery in the Bonny Doon area of Santa Cruz County. The analyzed band is similar to what is predicted for the Operation Freedom Paws functions. The original plan for the location and orientation of the band was to have the band situated on an outdoor deck on the north end of the pole barn facing the residential area along Murphy Avenue to the southeast. However, upon first notice of this situation, we recommended that the band be placed inside the pole barn at the southeasterly corner and face west toward the less noise sensitive Llagas Road. The analysis presented herein includes this relocation and reorientation of the band. The proposed functions are funding raising events that occur four times per year. The functions occur during daytime hours and are primarily outdoors. The pole barn is an open sided structure. The bands will typically play from 5:00-5:45 PM, with a dinner break from 5:45-8:30 (light background dinner music), then the final band set from 8:30-9:15 PM. ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT - 2

141 - 2 - The results of this study reveal that a moderately loud live band s sound levels will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance. The analysis calculated music sound levels at the five nearest residences along Murphy Avenue to the east of the site and the two nearest residences along Llagas Road to the south of the site. The receptor locations are shown on Figure 1, below. FIGURE 1 Band and Receptor Locations Table I on the following page provide the analysis of live music at the Operation Freedom Paws facility. The Table provides the receptor location, distances from the band to each residence building pad area, the reference sound levels measured at the Bonny Doon function including the orientation of the band (front, side and rear), the amount of noise shielding provided by interposed structures and the sound levels calculated for each receptor. The Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance daytime limits are shown at the bottom of the Table. The limits include the 5 decibel reduction for music content and the 5 db increase for different zoning districts. ATTACHMENT - 2

142 - 3 - TABLE I Live Music Sound Analysis, Operation Freedom Paws Band Live Band Reference Sound Levels, dba Sound Receptor, dba Receptor Location Dist., ft. Orientation L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax Dist shielding L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax 1 Murphy 800 side Murphy 635 side Murphy 480 side Murphy 650 rear Murphy 780 rear Llagas 611 front Llagas 725 side Noise Ordinance Limits= L 50 = 30 minutes/hour L 25 = 15 minutes/hour L 8 = 5 minutes/hour L 2 = 1 minute/hour L max = Maximum sound level The purpose of the events are to fund raise for the facility. Loud and boisterous attendees are not expected at these functions compared to other outdoor functions with live music, such as a wedding or party. The above sound levels include crowd noise from that function, which was low as the crowd was relatively quiet and calm, with the exception of some children running around and playing. Crowd noise from an outdoor wedding, for instance, would generate sound levels from dba at 480 ft. (Receptor 3) to dba at 800 ft. (Receptor 1). Noise from the project crowds are expected to generate sound levels much lower than those at a wedding. ATTACHMENT - 2

143 -4 This analysis concludes that the music sound levels expected at the Operation Freedom Paws facility functions will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance standards. Noise reduction measures will not be required provided that the bands play at reasonable volume levels and that they are oriented toward the front of the facility and away from the residences along Murphy Avenue, as shown in Figure 2, below. Figure 2 Band Orientation Within the Pole Barn ATTACHMENT - 2

144 - 5 - In terms of the Day-Night Level noise exposure used in the Santa Clara County General Plan, the highest noise exposure generated by a band would be 41 db DNL at the most impacted residence. Thus, the noise exposure would not significantly add to the existing noise environment in the area and due to the short duration in infrequent operation, there is a less-than-significant noise impact to the nearby residences. The report presents the results of a live music sound analysis for the Operation Freedom Paws facility at Llagas Road in Santa Clara County. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please contact me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President ATTACHMENT - 2

145 Trip Generation Analysis for Operation Freedom Paws Llagas Ave., San Martin CA APN June 2,2016 Prepared by: Kristi Abrams, T.E., License No Resuesú.' To modify the Conditional Use Permit to allow up to 250 dogs on-site with the flexibility to shift the number of allowable dogs between classes based on the need of Operation Freedom Paws. (Of note: During the original process and at the Planning Commission public hearing the applicant was advised to include in the Conditional Use Permit to request the likely number of dogs at start up of the business and that at the one year Conditional Use Permit review the applicant could request to modify the CUP to a higher number of dogs.) Proiect Description: A Conditional Use Permit was obtained in August ol 2014 for boarding of dogs and training of clienuservice dog teams at Llagas Avenue by Operation Freedom Paws, a 501 (c) 3 non-profit, to empower veterans and others with disabilities to restore their own independence. The clients are taught how to train their own service dogs. This is done at no cost to the client for the training, the dog, supplies for the dog and veterinarian care while the client is in training. Dogs in the program primarily come from rescue shelters. The project is comprised of a dog training facility and boarding for day care, overnight and dogs waiting to be placed with a client. The boarding and day care provides much needed funds to complete Operation Freedom Paws mission to provide not only training but all support services, such as food and veterinary care, at no cost to the clients. The majority of Operation Freedom Paws veteran clients are well below the State average medium income level. Clients in training are primarily disabled veterans and their service dogs. However, Operation Freedom Paws also provides training to disabled non-veterans clienvdog teams and those desiring training for the pet. More information about the program can be obtained from their website at 1 ATTACHMENT - 2

146 As requests for training and boarding have significantly increased, Operation Freedom Paws is requesting a modification to their Conditional Use Permit to allow an increased number of dogs for training and boarding. Kennels will be provided in varying shapes and sizes to accommodate the client's needs. For example, some multi-dog families will be housed in one kennel appropriate for their size. Kenneled dogs include boarders and those dogs waiting to be placed with a client. The dogs housed at the site are crated inside during the evening. A minimum of two staff members will be at the site to care for the boarded dogs twenty-four hours daily. While multiple classes may occur each day, the classes will be staggered throughout the day with the first class commencing at the earliest of 9:00 a.m. and the last class commencing at 7:00 p.m. Week day classes last between one to two hours. Saturday classes last for up to two and a half hours. The existing site is located at Llagas Avenue, directly south of Llagas Creek and Recology transfer site, southeast of the Santa Clarâ County - San Martin Water District Waste Water Treatment Plant and directly east of an auto salvage yard. Current Operations Classes are held on Tuesday mornings, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings, and Saturday mornings at the facility. Boarding is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Proposed Modified Operations: Due to the success of the program, both training and boarding demand has steadily increased. The applicant, founder Mary Cortani, is requesting to modify the Conditional Use Permit such that the maximum combined number of dogs with clients being trained and those boarded is 250. (Note: The Department of Health Kennel permit does not specify a maximum number of dogs on site.) 2 ATTACHMENT - 2

147 Trip Generation - Proposed Modified Operations: Assumptions:. Each client drives separately (Actually 20-25o/o of the clients car pool with each other). A significant portion of the training program clientele work, so many of the class times start off peak of the roadway. Volunteers and staff drive separately. Clients arrive 0-15 minutes prior to class o Clients leave 0-30 minutes after class. Class staff/volunteers arrive minutes before class r Class staff/volunteers leave minutes after class o One delivery vehicle occurs per day. One vehicle per day to provide building service, septic service, water review, other miscellaneous delivery, bring in new client dogs, etc. WORST CASE TRIP GENERATION* AM Peak of 37 " Trip reduction measures in the öusíness plan and actual carpooling by clients, as historically experienced, will reduce úñese numbers. Trip Distribution: 40% north on Llagas to Monterey to Tenant to north Highway % south on Llagas to San Martin to south Highway % north on Llagas to Monterey to Morgan Hill 10% south on Llagas to San Martin to Monterey to Gilroy 3 ATTACHMENT - 2

148 APPENDIX - trip calculations Glasses - Typical makeup clients per class with 1 staff and 1 volunteer Typically, in the proposed operations, up to three classes may occur at one time. While these classes may start at the same time at least one would typically end at a different times from the other two. With the exception of one Monday night class, all classes typically start off the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. All classes end outside the peak hour of the roadway. Typical weekday trip generation for typical high volume class day (worst case) Using a typical weekday seven class day with single classes beginning at 9:00am, 10:00am, 1 :00pm, and double classes beginning at 6:00pm and 7:00pm I classes x 30 students 240 x2 = I staff* 8x2= nteers* Total *Some staff and volunteers also assist with the boarding Maximum 512 daily weekday trips attributed to classes. Weekend daily trips are not anticipated to exceed weekday trips. Approximately 37 inbound trips occur during the weekday AM peak (30 clients, 4 staff and 3 volunteers) of the roadway and 67 inbound PM peak (60 clients, 4 staff and 3 volunteers). No outbound trips are anticipated during the AM or PM peak of the roadway. (Note: Approximately 20o/o of the existing clients carpool. If ls,s expected with the proposed modified project although not considered in this analysis.) 4 ATTACHMENT - 2

149 Boarding - Typical Makeup Volume of dogs vary - higher numbers occur when school is out, corresponding with an increase of vacation travel during that time (holidays and summer). Typical staff shifts 4 staff/volunteer -7am to 4pm 3 staff/volunteer - 8am to Spm 3 staff/volunteer - 9am to 6Pm 4 staff/volunteer - 4pm to 1 1pm 2 staff/volunteer - 11pm to 7am 7 AM peak hour trips and 7 PM peak hour trips Boarding drop off and pick up occurs throughout the day and into the evening. The number of dogs boarded does not directly correlate to the number of boarding clients as many bring multiple dogs for boarding. According to the 2012 U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Source Book, on average, 1.6 dogs are owner per household that has dogs. The dogs are boarded for a varying amount of time ranging from daycare to three weeks or more with a typicalstay ranging from 4 to 9 days. Additionally, twelve to fourteen of dogs boarded are owned by Operation Freedom Paws and are awaiting placement. To determine a probable worst case scenario the following assumptions are made:. 250 dogs boarded for an average stay of six days. o (250-12)11.6 (average dogs per dog household) = 149 households boarding dogs. 149 x 4 (in/out to drop off and in/out to pick up) over seven days = 596 one way trips days average stay = 85 daily in and out trips spread between 7 am to 10 pm (Drop off/pick up after 7pm by appointment only) o The facility is seeing slightly more drop off from 7-9 am and pick up from 3-7 pm with slightly more dogs dropped off on Friday and picked up on Monday.. 85/15 (spread over fifteen hours) = 6 one way trips per hour. o Multiply by 3 to allow for the additional pickup during the morning peak Monday am and evening peak hour of the roadway pm. o Boarding picuup drop off adds 18 am and 18 pm peak hour trips Approximately 30 daily trips attributed to staff for boarding with 7 am and 7 pm 5 ATTACHMENT - 2

150 Drop off/pick up service is available from Operation Freedom Paws which would reduce trips - (this option not included in trip estimates) It is anticipated that business support (mail, deliveries, miscellaneous) and visitors would add no more than approximately 10 daily trips with no more than 2 during each of the AM and PM peak of the roadway. Thus boarding at maximum capacity of 250 dogs with no training classes provided produces 125 daily trips with 27 in the am and 27 in the pm. Worst case is 8 classes with 240 dogs and ten additional dogs owned and boarded by Operation Freedom Paws to be placed with clients. The dogs boarded in this case would add no additional traffic to the roadway, therefore, the maximum of I classes per day govern for the worst case scenario. 6 ATTACHMENT - 2

151 ATTACHMENT - 2

152 ATTACHMENT - 2

153 ATTACHMENT - 2

154 ATTACHMENT - 2

155 ATTACHMENT - 2

156 ATTACHMENT - 2

157 ATTACHMENT - 2

158 ATTACHMENT - 2

159 ATTACHMENT - 2

160 ATTACHMENT - 2

161 ATTACHMENT - 2

162 ATTACHMENT - 2

163 ATTACHMENT - 2

164 ATTACHMENT - 2

165 ATTACHMENT - 2

166 ATTACHMENT - 2

167 ATTACHMENT - 2

168 ATTACHMENT - 2

169 ATTACHMENT - 2

170 ATTACHMENT - 2

171 ATTACHMENT - 2

172 ATTACHMENT - 2

173 ATTACHMENT - 2

174 ATTACHMENT - 2

175 ATTACHMENT - 2

176 ATTACHMENT - 2

177 ATTACHMENT - 2

178 ATTACHMENT - 2

179 ATTACHMENT - 2

180 ATTACHMENT - 2

181 ATTACHMENT - 2

182 ATTACHMENT - 2

183 ATTACHMENT - 2

184 ATTACHMENT - 2

185 ATTACHMENT - 2

186 ATTACHMENT - 2

187 ATTACHMENT - 2

188 ATTACHMENT - 2

189 ATTACHMENT - 2

190 ATTACHMENT - 2

191 ATTACHMENT - 2

192 ATTACHMENT - 2

193 ATTACHMENT - 2

194 ATTACHMENT - 2

195 ATTACHMENT - 2

196 ATTACHMENT - 2

197 ATTACHMENT - 2

198 ATTACHMENT - 2

199 ATTACHMENT - 2

200 ATTACHMENT - 2

201 ATTACHMENT - 2

202 ATTACHMENT - 2

203 ATTACHMENT - 2

204 ATTACHMENT - 2

205 ATTACHMENT - 2

206 ATTACHMENT - 2

207 ATTACHMENT - 2

208 ATTACHMENT - 2

209 ATTACHMENT - 2

210 ATTACHMENT - 2

211 ATTACHMENT - 2

212 ATTACHMENT - 2

213 ATTACHMENT - 2

214 ATTACHMENT - 2

215 ATTACHMENT - 2

216 ATTACHMENT - 2

217 ATTACHMENT - 2

218 ATTACHMENT - 2

219 ATTACHMENT - 2

220 ATTACHMENT - 2

221 ATTACHMENT - 2

222 ATTACHMENT - 2

223 ATTACHMENT - 2

224 ATTACHMENT - 2

225 ATTACHMENT - 2

226 ATTACHMENT - 2

227 ATTACHMENT - 2

228 ATTACHMENT - 2

229 ATTACHMENT - 2

230 ATTACHMENT - 2

231 ATTACHMENT - 2

232 ATTACHMENT - 2

233 ATTACHMENT - 2

234 ATTACHMENT - 2

235 ATTACHMENT - 2

236 ATTACHMENT - 2

237 ATTACHMENT - 2

238 ATTACHMENT - 2

239 ATTACHMENT - 2

240 ATTACHMENT - 2

241 ATTACHMENT - 2

242 ATTACHMENT - 2

243 ATTACHMENT - 2

244 EDWARD L. PACKASSOCIATES. INC HAMILTON AVENUE SUITE 26 SAN JOSE, CA Aco u sti c a I Co n s u lta nt s TEL: FAX: wvnv. packassociates. com March ll,2016 Project No Ms. Mary Cortani Operation Freedom Paws Llagas Avenue San Martin, CA Subject: Noise Analysis of Increased Dog Capacity, Operation Freedom Paws, Llagas Avenueo Santa Clara County Dear Ms. Cortani This report will provide you with a supplemental analysis of dog barking noise for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed increased capacity of dogs at the facility. The noise data presented in this report were derived from the original noise study for the project. The original study evaluated the project-generated noise levels under a capacity scenario of 70 dogs on the site, with 24 dogs in the outdoor Utility Training Yard. The proposed :- ) CUP application is for a total of 250 doþs on site, with up to 165 dogs in the Utility \---,--.,:-"- Training Yard. This study analyzes a volume of dogs outdoor yard at one time, under the same barking scenario as previously number of dogs. aàãlyzed but with the proportional greater Table I, belowo provides the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance noise limits applicable to the project, the noise levels at the most impacted residential properties and at the King residence along Murphy Avenue under the cunent application and under the proposed application. The number of dogs shown is for the outdoor area only. The remainder of the dogs will be indoors. ATTACHMENT - 2

245 a The increase in noise level from the original scenario to the new scenario is calculated using the formula: AdB + l0logls(i65/24) Thus, the increase in the noise levels, with the exception of the L*u* value, is +8d8. Note that the L.u" is a I second duration noise level and is a result of the loudest bark at any given time. As shown above, the noise levels generated by a group of dogs barking in the outdoor Utility Training Yard, regardless of the number of dogs under either scenario, will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance standards. In addition to the evaluation of project-generated noise per the Noise Ordinance, the longer term 24-hour average noise exposure (Day-Night Level) used by the Noise Element of the General Plan generated by the proposed greater volume of dogs was evaluated. TABLE I Project-Generated Noise Levels Under Original Application (24 Dogs) L-u* L2 Lg Lzs Lso Noise Ordinance Limits 80 dba 75 dba 70 dba 65 dba 60 dba Llagas Ave. 59 dba 51 dba 44 dba 39 dba 36 dba Murphy Ave. 57 dba 48 dba 4I dba 36 dba 33 dba King Residence 52 dba 36 dba 29 dba 24 dba 2I dba Project-Generated Noise Levels Under New Application (165 Dogs) Llagas Ave. 59 dba 69 dba 52 dba 47 dba 44 dba Murphy Ave 57 dba 56 dba 49 dba 44 dba 41 dba King Residence 52 dba 44 dba 37 dba 32 dba 29 dba ATTACHMENT - 2

246 -3- As with the short-term noise levels, the DNL increase is also I db. Table II, below, provides the General Plan noise limit, the project-generated noise exposures under the current scenario and under the proposed scenario, and the resultant changes in the ambient noise environments. As shown in Table II, the project-generated noise exposures will be within the 55 db DNL limit of the Santa Clara County Noise Element of the General Plan. In addition, the project-generated noise exposures will not add to the existing noise environments at the residential receptor locations in the vicinity of the project. This results in a Less Than Significant noise impact, per the California Environmental Quality Act. The project-generated noise levels and noise exposures will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance and Noise Element. Therefore, noise mitigation measures will not be required. TABLE II Project'Generated Noise Exposures (24 Dogs) Receptor Noise Limit Project Noise Existing Amb. ^db Llagas Ave 55 db DNL 30 db DNL 56 db DNL 0dB Murphy Ave. 55 db DNL 26 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB King Residence 55 db DNL 16 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB Project-Generated Noise Exposures (165 Dogs) Llagas Ave. 55 db DNL 38 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB Murphy Ave. 55 db DNL 34 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB King Residence 55 db DNL 24 db DNL 59 db DNL 0dB ATTACHMENT - 2

247 -4- For informational purposes, the following section will provide you with the calculated noise reductions if a noise control barrier was to be constructed along the north and west sides of the outdoor Utility Training Yard. The noise levels were calculated for the King residence only. 6 ft. high: - 6 db Tft.high:-7dB I ft. high: - I db 9 fr. high: - 8 db 10 ft. high: - 9 db The difference between - 6dB and -9dB would be barely detectable to the human ear A 6 decibel overall noise reduction is approximately equivalent to a 25%o decrease in the loudness of the dog barks. This is a noticeable amount but it is usually not enough to be worthwhile. Noise barriers can be constructed of any somewhat heavy material (1" thick wood, masonry, earth berm, etc.) and must be air-tight for the life of the barrier. The report presents the results of a supplemental noise analysis for a proposed new Conditional Use Permit for the Operation Freedom Paws facility at Llagas Avenue in Santa Clara County. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please contact me Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrev K. Pack President ATTACHMENT - 2

248 January 27, 2016 Ms. Valerie Negrete Associate Planner County of Santa Clara Planning & Development Department Transmitted via Subject: Peer reviews of the Noise Assessment Study for Operation Freedom Paws (Edward Pack Associates, July 16, 2014, Project #46-051) and Analysis of Increased Dog Capacity for Freedom Paws (Edward Pack Associates, March 11, 2016, Project # ). Dear Ms. Negrete, Pursuant to the request of Santa Clara County, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) has conducted comprehensive peer reviews of the above referenced documents. The purposes of these reviews were to ascertain if noise impacts associated with the project had been properly evaluated relative to both Santa Clara County and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria, in accordance with industry-standard practices. This letter contains the results of BAC s peer reviews. In addition to conducting the peer review included in this letter, BAC also conducted additional analysis based on feedback from Santa Clara County. That additional analysis follows BAC s peer reviews of the Edward Pack Associates assessments. Peer Review of July 16, 2014 Noise Assessment The July 16, 2014 Noise Study Assessment prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates Inc. was based on a proposal for a 50 dog kennel and training facility at Llagas Avenue in Santa Clara County. BAC has the following comments on the 2014 study: 1. The section titled Background Information on Acoustics is clearly presented and contains adequate information to inform the reader of the acoustical terminology used in the noise study report and to provide a fundamental understanding of human perception of noise and likely reactions to noise of various levels. No revisions to this section are warranted. 2. The section containing Noise Standards, Goals and Policies correctly lists the applicable Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance standards. The rationale for only applying the daytime noise level standards to this project is provided (dogs will only be outside during daytime hours), and the 5 db upward adjustment to the Noise Ordinance limits due to two zoning districts abutting is supported. The Santa Clara County General Plan noise standards are also presented in this section, and the noise level limits 3551 Bankhead Road Loomis, CA Phone: (916) Fax: (916) BACNOISE.COM ATTACHMENT - 2

249 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 2 applicable at the nearest residences to the project site are properly reported. No revisions to this section are warranted. 3. The CEQA discussion pertaining to the requirement that a project must cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels for a finding of significant impact is accurate. However, the support for the statement that Nosie Ordinance values, which are used primarily for noise annoyance, are not evaluated for CEQA purposes, is not provided. This turns out to be a moot point because the noise assessment did evaluate impacts relative to both the General Plan noise standards as well as the County Noise Ordinance standards. 4. The reference for the statements that the County of Santa Clara considers significant noise impacts to occur if a project would cause DNL levels at sensitive receptors to increase by five db DNL or more where the noise levels would remain normally acceptable, and that the County considers significant noise impacts to occur if a project would cause DNL levels at sensitive receptors to increase by three db DNL or more where the noise levels would equal or exceed normally acceptable levels, is not provided. However, these criteria are consistent with industry standards and are considered suitable for the evaluation of the significance of project-related noise level increases for this project. 5. The section providing the Site and Project Description is clearly presented. However, it appears that the locations of the outdoor dog training activities are not consistent with what was provided in the project site plan. The additional analysis provided by BAC following this peer review includes consideration of outdoor training activities at the locations identified on the project site plan. BAC created Figure 1 to illustrate the location of the project site relative to the nearest residences. The two residential receptors evaluated in the Pack analysis represent the two closest residences. As a result, provided noise impacts do not occur at the two nearest residences, impacts at more distant residences are not anticipated. Of critical importance in this section of the Pack analysis is the statement that, because the dogs will be trained as services dogs for veterans, the dogs will be trained not to bark. The annoyance caused by this facility to the nearest residential neighbors will very likely hinge on the ability of the dog trainers to control barking. BAC staff has observed well trained dog handlers controlling the barking of groups of dogs during outdoor training exercises at other facilities, so achieving the objective of minimal barking is considered to be feasible. 6. The section describing the Existing Nosie Environments without the Project provides sufficient information on pre-project ambient noise conditions such that noise impacts of the project can be evaluated relative to the reported baseline conditions. The number and locations of noise measurement sites are appropriate for the setting of the project site, and the selection of the quietest day of the week for conducting the ambient monitoring (Sunday), indicates that the assessments of project impacts relative to ambient conditions are likely conservative. The pertinent noise measurement results are clearly provided in both the text and appendices. No revisions to this section are warranted. ATTACHMENT - 2

250 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 3 7. The section describing Project Generated Noise Levels contains the pertinent information required to reasonably ascertain the noise generation of the project. Specifically, the normalized listing of dog bark noise levels provides a logical range of dog sizes and corresponding bark levels. BAC file data for barking dog noise emissions collected for various kennel projects over recent years is consistent with the reference noise levels provided in the subject study. The use of the 6 db decrease per doubling of distance from the noise source is appropriate given the size of the outdoor training area relative to the distances to the nearest residential neighbors. The exclusion of the noise reduction provided by excess ground attenuation and atmospheric absorption over distance provides conservative prediction results, as actual noise levels will be even lower at the nearest residences. The reported noise reduction provided by the steel building is reasonable. However, it is BAC s professional opinion that the steel structure would likely provide greater than the assumed 5 db net reduction in barking dog sound levels. The noise study assumption that the net noise attenuation of that building would only be 5 db after factoring in reverberation conditions within the building is believed to be very conservative. 8. The predicted barking dog noise levels provided in Table IV contain some minor computational errors, but those errors do not affect the conclusions of the study regarding compliance with Santa Clara County noise standards or the potential noise impacts of the project. Specifically, the value of 57 db L max predicted at Murphy Avenue does not contain the +3 db adjustment for reflections off of the steel building in the direction of this residences described in the 6 th paragraph on page 15 of the report. The spreadsheets shown in Appendix C include the +3 db correction for this reflection in the computation of hourly average noise levels (L eq ), and day/night average levels (DNL), but it appears that correction was not applied to the computation of L max levels. As noted previously, this change has no bearing on the conclusions of the study, as the correctly predicted L max would still be 20 db below the County noise standard, whereas the level reported was 23 db below the maximum noise standard. As such, this is a very minor computational error. The end of the 3 rd paragraph on Page 14 of the noise study assumes 24 dog barks per hour in the outdoor play area, at a duration of 1 second per bark. The resulting 24 seconds of barking during the hour would not reach the level of 1 minute/hour, so the County s L 2 noise standard, which represents 1 minute of noise generation per hour, would not be applicable. Similarly, the County s standards applicable to noise generated 5 min/hr (L 8 ), 15 min/hr (L 25 ), and 30 min/hr (L 50 ), would technically not be applicable to the dog barks. As a result, the predicted L n values shown in Table IV would more appropriately be labeled N/A, for not applicable, based on the assumed number of dog barks per hour. Nonetheless, the predicted L n levels reported in Table IV are all well below the County s noise level limits. Therefore, the conservative but unnecessary inclusion of analysis relative to the County s L n noise standards, which indicate full compliance with those ATTACHMENT - 2

251 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 4 standards, is further support for the project s findings of less than significant noise impacts at the nearest residences. Even if the assumption that there would only be 24 seconds of barking per hour is understated, and even if only the largest/loudest dogs were to bark for a far greater percentage of the hour than assumed in the noise study, BAC s independent analysis indicates that the County s noise ordinance limits would still be satisfied at the nearest residences by a considerable margin. That independent analysis is provided following this peer review. 9. The Project-Generated Noise Exposures in terms of DNL are reported in Table V on page 16 of the report. The predicted DNL values of 30 and 26 db at the nearest residences to the south and east, respectively, match the DNL values computed in the spreadsheets contained in Appendix C of the Pack analysis when the outdoor and indoor dog bark DNL values are combined. BAC independently verified the accuracy of the computations, and concurs with the noise study findings that the dog bark DNL levels would be well below both the County s 55 db DNL noise level limit, and the measured ambient noise levels of 56 to 59 DNL at the nearest residences. 10. In summary, BAC agrees with the Conclusions of the subject noise study as summarized on Page 17 of the report. Specifically, BAC agrees with the conclusions that the sound generated by dogs barking at the project site would be well within compliance with both the Santa Clara County General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest residences, and that if/when dog barks are audible at the two nearest residences, they will be audible at sound levels well below measured existing ambient conditions. Peer Review of Edward Pack Associates March 11, 2016 Supplemental Noise Analysis of Increased Capacity Operations Whereas the July 16, 2014 Pack Noise Study assessed impacts associated with 50 dogs being boarded at the project site (with 50% outdoors at any given time), the March 11, 2016 analysis evaluated impacts associated with increased capacity five times greater than that evaluated in the original 2014 study. Specifically, the applicant s current proposal is for a facility permitted to board up to 250 dogs at a time, with as many as 165 dogs in the outdoor yard at one time. BAC has the following comments on the supplemental analysis of the expanded capacity project: 11. The mathematical computation shown at the top of Page 2 of the supplemental analysis, which was used to scale the increase in noise levels associated with an increase from 24 to 165 dogs outside at a time, is correct. Specifically, the computed theoretical 8 db increase due to the increased number of dogs is correct provided all other variables pertaining to the sizes of the barking dogs and the frequency at which they were assumed to bark remain constant. ATTACHMENT - 2

252 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page BAC concurs that, while the frequency of dog barks would increase due to the increased number of dogs outdoors at a time, the maximum noise generation of individual dog barks would not change. Therefore, unless two or more dogs barked at exactly the same time, the maximum noise levels (L max ), predicted in the original analysis would still hold for the increased capacity analysis. Table 1 indicates that predicted maximum noise levels associated with dog barks would be at least 20 db below the Santa Clara County maximum noise level limit of 80 db L max at the nearest residences. Given the fact that there would be nearly 7 times more dogs outdoors under the increased capacity operations (165 dogs), the likelihood of two or more dogs barking at the same time increases to the point where such occurrences can no longer be considered improbable. However, it would take an improbably large number of even the largest/loudest dogs barking at precisely the same moment to approach exceedance of the County s noise level standards. Specifically, if 2, 5, 10, or even 20 German Shepherds barked at exactly the same time, the increase in maximum noise levels at the nearest residence would increase by only 3 to 13 db. The resulting maximum noise levels would still be well below the County s maximum noise level limit of 80 db L max. So while it is BAC s professional opinion that the likelihood of having 2 or more dog barks occur at precisely the same time would increase appreciably with a 7-fold increase in the number of dogs outside together, it is also BAC s professional opinion that such occurrences would not result in exceedance of the County s maximum noise level standards at the nearest residences. 13. Regarding the computation of L n values associated with the increased capacity project, provided the assumption that the number of hourly occurrences of dog barks would increase proportionally to the increased number of dogs, then the computed increase of 8 db would be correct. If, however, the bark-trigger stimuli associated an increased number of dogs present in the outdoor area at any time results in a disproportionate increase in the probability of barking, then an increase in overall noise levels in excess of 8 db could result. Given 165 dogs outside at the same time, it is entirely possible that there would be more than a 7-fold increase in the number of hourly barks. Building on the original noise study, the supplemental noise analysis assumes that each dog would essentially bark one time during the hour, at one second per bark. 165 barks per hour would equate to 2.8 minutes of barking per hour if the dogs are not barking concurrently, and a smaller duration if they are barking concurrently. Based on that assumed duration of barking, the applicable County noise standard would be the L 2, which applies to sources of noise which are present for at least 1 minute per hour but less than 5 minutes per hour. The County s daytime L 2 standard is 75 db. Because even the loudest dog barks would be 15 db lower than the 75 db standard, BAC concurs with the conclusion of the supplemental noise analysis that a 7-fold increase in barking would still not result in exceedance of the County s noise standards. ATTACHMENT - 2

253 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 6 But if the increased number of dogs increased the bark stimuli such that the increase in hourly barking was more than 7-fold relative to the original analysis, an increase in noise levels at the nearest residences would result. In a hypothetical, and likely beyond worstcase example of a 20-fold increase in the number of dog barks associated with the increased capacity of the facility, the theoretical number of seconds per hour during which dogs would be barking would be 480 seconds, or 8 minutes out of the hour. Given that unlikely duration, the applicable County noise standard would be the L 8, which applies to sources of noise present for at least 5 minutes per hour, but less than 15 minutes per hour. The County s daytime L 8 standard is 70 db. Because even the loudest dog barks would be 10 db lower than the 70 db standard, even under this unlikely scenario of 8 minutes of dog barks per hour, the County s Noise Ordinance standards would still not be exceeded at the nearest residences. Conclusions of BAC s Peer Review of the Original and Supplemental Noise Studies For both the original and increased capacity analyses, this peer review has evaluated the appropriateness of the noise standards used to conduct the impact assessments, the ambient noise measurement equipment, methodology and results, assumptions regarding project noise generation, computational analysis based on those assumptions, and conclusions regarding the potential noise impacts of the project relative to the applicable County and CEQA criteria. After conducting such a peer review, only minimal and minor computational discrepancies were identified and those differences had no effect on the conclusions of the analysis. Even with increasing the theoretical frequency during which dog barks might occur at the project site relative to the assumptions contained in the subject noise studies, BAC concludes that the project noise generation would still be well within compliance with both the County s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards for acceptable noise exposure at residential land uses. Ultimately, the frequency of barking occurring at the project site will depend on the ability of the staff to control such barking. But the setbacks between the project site and nearest residential neighbors is such that, even if barking were to occur at a greater frequency than anticipated in the noise studies, exceedance of the County s noise standards at those nearest residences is not anticipated, and noise impacts would not be identified. Supplemental Analysis Prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) in Response to Santa Clara County Questions In response to input from Santa Clara County Staff, BAC prepared additional analysis of barking dog noise levels received at the nearest residences for additional scenarios. The specific scenarios for which BAC conducted additional analysis are as follows: Assessment of varying numbers of dogs barking inside the kennel building with doors of the kennel facility both open and closed. ATTACHMENT - 2

254 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 7 Assessment of varying numbers of dogs barking outside within the 3 training areas identified on the project site plan. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site and nearest residences. As noted previously, the two nearest residences to the facility are located immediately south and east of the project site, at distances of 300 and 800 feet from the nearest on-site structure. The additional analysis of the scenarios outlined above focuses on these two nearest residences. Figure 2 shows the project site plan, including the locations of the three outdoor training areas (agility yard and two covered exercise yards). Figure 2 also shows the locations of the main indoor training facility and the indoor kennel area, which also serves as an overflow training area. Figure 3 shows oblique aerial images of the project site from all four primary compass directions. To independently predict the noise generation of the proposed project, BAC developed assumptions regarding the numbers of dogs in each location (outdoor and indoor), as well as the number of times each of those dogs could be expected to bark in any given hour. Distances from the three outdoor training areas to the two nearest residences were scaled using Google Earth. Table 1 shows the various scenarios evaluated, including assumptions pertaining to the number of dogs barking, the locations of the dogs (indoors or outdoors), the position of the building doors (open or closed), and the predicted average and maximum noise levels at the nearest residences for each scenario. As noted in the Edward Pack Analysis, the following noise standards are applied to this project at the nearby residential receiver locations: Individual Maximum (Lmax): 80 db Lmax daytime, 70 db Lmax nighttime Hourly Average (median): 60 db Leq/L50 daytime, 50 db Leq/L50 nighttime Day/Night Average Level: 56 db Ldn South Residence, 59 db Ldn East Residence The sound levels reported in Table 1 are color coded as follows: Green: Purple: Red: Orange: No exceedance of either daytime, nighttime, or Ldn standard. Exceedance of the Daytime noise level standard Exceedance of the Nighttime noise standard Exceedance of the Ldn standard ATTACHMENT - 2

255 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 8 Scenario Dog Location 1 Table 1 Predicted Freedom Paws Noise Levels at Nearest Residences as a Function of Number of Dogs Barking Simultaneously and Total Dog Barking During an Hour Maximum Hourly Average Door Position 2 # of Dogs 3 Simultaneous Barks 4 East Residence (Lmax, dba) South Residence Hourly Barks/dog 5 East Residence (Leq, dba) South Residence Day/Night Average Level (Ldn, dba) East South Residence Residence 1 Outside N/A Outside N/A Outside N/A Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Closed Inside Open Inside Open Inside Open Combined Closed Combined Closed Combined Closed Combined Open Combined Open Combined Open Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) 1. Refers to analysis of noise levels while the dogs are outside during training or inside during training/kenneling periods. 2. Refers to the position of the metal doors of the building see Figure 3 for door locations. For a conservative assessment of the noise reduction of the building after accounting for interior reverberation, it was assumed that the building only provides 5 db of barking dog noise reduction. With doors open, it was assumed that the noise would be 10 db higher. 3. Total proposed capacity of the facility is 250 dogs. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that half of the dogs would be outside during daytime hours and half inside. During nighttime hours, all of the dogs would be inside with kennel doors closed (scenarios 7 9). 4. The number of dogs barking simultaneously is required to compute the instantaneous maximum noise level at the nearby receptors. For this analysis, it was assumed that 1 dog of each breed size would bark simultaneously, with that number multiplied by the number of simultaneous occurrences. 5. The hourly barks per dog represents the number of theoretical times each dog would bark over the course of a 60 minute period. For example, with 125 dogs outside barking 30 times per hour, the total number of hourly dog barks would be 3,750 barks. This number is not considered likely, but was included in the analysis to demonstrate the relationship between number of barks and average noise levels received at the nearest residences. ATTACHMENT - 2

256 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 9 Analysis of Table 1 data Instantaneous Maximum Noise Levels (Lmax) The Table 1 data indicate that the County s 80 db Lmax daytime noise level standard would not be exceeded at any of the nearby residences even with kennel doors open and up to 80 dogs barking at precisely the same moment. As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s 80 db Lmax daytime noise level standard at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking concurrently. During nighttime hours, the Table 1 data indicate that the County s 70 db Lmax nighttime noise level standard would be exceeded with doors open and more than 24 dogs barking simultaneously. However, the doors of the kennel and training buildings are proposed to be closed during nighttime hours and no outdoor training activities are proposed to occur during the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am. As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s 70 db Lmax nighttime noise level standard at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking concurrently. Hourly Average Noise Levels (Leq) The County does not technically have an hourly average noise level limit. The County s noise level limits are graduated based on the duration of time out of the hour during which the barking were to occur. For a more conservative approach to noise impact assessment for this project, BAC applied the County s median (L 50 ) noise standard to the predicted average hourly noise levels generated by multiple dogs barking over the course of an hour. The Table 1 data indicate that the County s 60 db Leq/L50 daytime noise level standard would not be exceeded at any of the nearby residences even with kennel doors open and each of the 250 dogs dog barking an unrealistic 30 times in the same hour (30 barks/hour x 250 dogs = 7,500 total barks in an hour). As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s 60 db Leq/L50 daytime noise level standard at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking repetitively throughout the course of the hour. During nighttime hours, the Table 1 data indicate that the County s 50 db Leq/L50 nighttime noise level standard would be exceeded under numerous scenarios should multiple barks occur during nighttime hours. However, no outdoor training activities are proposed to occur during the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am, so the two exceedances identified at the south residence for Scenarios 2 and 3 would not occur. Furthermore, kennel doors are proposed to be closed during nighttime hours, so the exceedances identified under scenarios 10 through 12, 16 and 17 would not occur. Due to high reverberation conditions within the kennel buildings identified by the Edward Pack report, nighttime noise levels at the Southern residence could exceed 50 db Leq/L50 of each of the 250 dogs boarded at this facility were to bark in excess of 20 times each during the same hour. This equates to 5,000 barks originating within the kennel building during nighttime hours when the dogs would normally be sleeping, which is a highly unlikely scenario. As a result, exceedance of the County s nighttime noise level median (L50) noise standard at any of the nearby residences is considered extremely unlikely. Nonetheless, should concerns be ATTACHMENT - 2

257 Ms. Valerie Negrete January 27, 2017 Page 10 expressed by the nearby residents regarding nighttime barking from within the kennel, BAC recommends that the following measures be considered: 1. Nighttime noise monitoring could be conducted at the location where the concerns are being expressed to specifically quantify the noise generation of the dogs within the kennels during nighttime hours. The period to be monitored should coincide with a period of heavy kennel occupancy. 2. Sound absorbing panels could be installed within the kennel building to reduce overall reverberation characteristics and lower noise levels inside the kennel building. Lower noise levels inside the kennel building would translate into lower noise levels in the community. 3. Additional supervision could be utilized during nighttime hours to ensure that the boarded dogs do not bark uncontrollably. Day/Night Average Noise Levels (Ldn) The Table 1 data indicate that the applicable Ldn standards would not be exceeded at any of the nearby residences even with kennel doors open and multiple dog barks during any given hour. As a result, the project as proposed is expected to be in full compliance with the County s Ldnbased noise level limits at the nearest residences, even with multiple dogs barking. Conclusions: Both BAC s peer review of the Edward Pack Associates noise studies and BAC s independent analysis conclude that noise generated by this project, even with somewhat unrealistically high assumptions pertaining to the number of dogs barking at the site, would be satisfactory relative to Santa Clara County noise level standards. Nonetheless, should concerns be expressed regarding barking dog noise levels originating at this facility, the additional noise mitigation measures described above could be implemented to further control barking dog sound levels if determined necessary. This concludes BAC s review and comments regarding the environmental noise analysis for the Freedom Paws Kennel located in Santa Clara County, CA. Please contact BAC at (916) or paulb@bacnoise.com with any comments or questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Paul Bollard President, INCE Board Certified ATTACHMENT - 2

258 Figure 1 Project Site, Surrounding Land Uses, and Distances to Nearest Residences Freedom Paws Project Santa Clara County, California Food Processing Plant Transfer Station Car Donation Facility Project Site Murphy Avenue Industrial Manufacturing = Nearest Residences ATTACHMENT - 2

259 Figure 2 Freedom Paws Project Site Plan ATTACHMENT - 2

260 Figure 3 Freedom Paws Project Aerial Photos View looking East View looking North View looking West View looking South ATTACHMENT - 2

261 EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: SUITE 26 FAX: SAN JOSE, CA Ms. Mary Cortani Operation Freedom Paws Llagas Avenue San Martin, CA April 20, 2017 Project No Subject: Live Music Sound Analysis, Operation Freedom Paws, Llagas Avenue, Santa Clara County Dear Ms. Cortani: This report will provide you with the results of a live music sound analysis for special events at the Operation Freedom Paws facility in Santa Clara County. The music sound levels were evaluated against the standards of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance. The special events are expected to use live music (bands) to perform for moderate sized crowds as background music during functions. For the purposes of this study, the live band sound level data used in this analysis was a classic rock/blues band performing at a casual outdoor public function at a winery in the Bonny Doon area of Santa Cruz County. The analyzed band is similar to what is predicted for the Operation Freedom Paws functions. The original plan for the location and orientation of the band was to have the band situated on an outdoor deck on the north end of the pole barn facing the residential area along Murphy Avenue to the southeast. However, upon first notice of this situation, we recommended that the band be placed inside the pole barn at the southeasterly corner and face west toward the less noise sensitive Llagas Road. The analysis presented herein includes this relocation and reorientation of the band. The proposed functions are funding raising events that occur four times per year. The functions occur during daytime hours and are primarily outdoors. The pole barn is an open sided structure. The bands will typically play from 5:00-5:45 PM, with a dinner break from 5:45-8:30 (light background dinner music), then the final band set from 8:30-9:15 PM. ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT - 2

262 - 2 - The results of this study reveal that a moderately loud live band s sound levels will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance. The analysis calculated music sound levels at the five nearest residences along Murphy Avenue to the east of the site and the two nearest residences along Llagas Road to the south of the site. The receptor locations are shown on Figure 1, below. FIGURE 1 Band and Receptor Locations Table I on the following page provide the analysis of live music at the Operation Freedom Paws facility. The Table provides the receptor location, distances from the band to each residence building pad area, the reference sound levels measured at the Bonny Doon function including the orientation of the band (front, side and rear), the amount of noise shielding provided by interposed structures and the sound levels calculated for each receptor. The Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance daytime limits are shown at the bottom of the Table. The limits include the 5 decibel reduction for music content and the 5 db increase for different zoning districts. ATTACHMENT - 2

263 - 3 - TABLE I Live Music Sound Analysis, Operation Freedom Paws Band Live Band Reference Sound Levels, dba Sound Receptor, dba Receptor Location Dist., ft. Orientation L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax Dist shielding L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax 1 Murphy 800 side Murphy 635 side Murphy 480 side Murphy 650 rear Murphy 780 rear Llagas 611 front Llagas 725 side Noise Ordinance Limits= L 50 = 30 minutes/hour L 25 = 15 minutes/hour L 8 = 5 minutes/hour L 2 = 1 minute/hour L max = Maximum sound level The purpose of the events are to fund raise for the facility. Loud and boisterous attendees are not expected at these functions compared to other outdoor functions with live music, such as a wedding or party. The above sound levels include crowd noise from that function, which was low as the crowd was relatively quiet and calm, with the exception of some children running around and playing. Crowd noise from an outdoor wedding, for instance, would generate sound levels from dba at 480 ft. (Receptor 3) to dba at 800 ft. (Receptor 1). Noise from the project crowds are expected to generate sound levels much lower than those at a wedding. ATTACHMENT - 2

264 -4 This analysis concludes that the music sound levels expected at the Operation Freedom Paws facility functions will be within the limits of the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance standards. Noise reduction measures will not be required provided that the bands play at reasonable volume levels and that they are oriented toward the front of the facility and away from the residences along Murphy Avenue, as shown in Figure 2, below. Figure 2 Band Orientation Within the Pole Barn ATTACHMENT - 2

265 - 5 - In terms of the Day-Night Level noise exposure used in the Santa Clara County General Plan, the highest noise exposure generated by a band would be 41 db DNL at the most impacted residence. Thus, the noise exposure would not significantly add to the existing noise environment in the area and due to the short duration in infrequent operation, there is a less-than-significant noise impact to the nearby residences. The report presents the results of a live music sound analysis for the Operation Freedom Paws facility at Llagas Road in Santa Clara County. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please contact me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President ATTACHMENT - 2

266 Negrete, Valerie From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Tuesday, December 06, 20L6 1-1:34 AM Negrete, Valerie Operation Freedom Paws Development Proposal Kennel00l jpg Dear Valerie, I am writing you to express my concern regarding the proposed increase in dog numbers to be kenneled at Operation Freedom Paws which leases its facility from Recology/Sunset Properties. My property is located at Muphy Avenue and I live adjacent to the east side of the transfer station and frontage along Murphy Avenue. We are located diagonally to the northeast from the kennel location. My personal residence is approximately 1,000 feet from the kennel facilities. Currently, there are periodic episodes where dog barking is disturbing to the peaceful nature of our neighborhood. I do communicate with Mary Cortini at the kennel when barking noise reaches levels that are beyond my tolerance. I wish I did not have to call anyone regarding excessive dog barking. I find that cyclically the dog barking is quieted and then permitted to increase by the kennel operators following their interactions with the county. When they are trying to get use permit compliance documentation, the kennel is quiet. When they feel "safe" as there is less county or other regulatory scrutiny then dog barking increases. I have resorted to calling Santa Clara County animal control under the provision of the "nuisance barking ordinance" and reported barking when the kennel operators have not sufficiently controlled the barking noise. I am aware that my neighbors to the north, south and across the street (east of me) have also been disturbed by elevated barking originating from the kennel. The "noise shed" to the east of the kennel and specific noise receptors consist of the approximately 6 single family homes that surround my house location. The best situation would be that I never have to call Mary or to call the County regarding nuisance barking noise. I just want to live peacefully on my land. There were no problems with excessive barking noise in our neighborhood prior to the operation of the kennel. My current understanding based on the initial study/mitigated negative declaration for Operation Freedom Paws is that the kennel is allowed up to 70 dogs per the existing use permit. At the last county review period they (the county and Mary Cortini - in full council chambers) disclosed that they are exceeding this number and are in violation of their permitted dog occupation allowance. The current Santa Clara County correspondence which I received last week indicates a request for use permit modification which would allow up to 250 dogs. This number is staggering. I am not in support of the increase in dog numbers at the kennel facility. I appreciate the efforts of Operation Freedom Paws to support soldiers with post traumatic stress disorder by providing them service dogs. lt is a noble and kind action worth of support. I however will be suffering my own traumatic stress disorder with any increase in dog barking in our neighborhood. As the proposed use permit indicates a factor of over 3.5 times the number of dogs currently allowed, I have no confidence that the barking will not increase. The increase in dogs will only increase the potential for peak 1

267 barking by a significant magnitude. lt is not clear that the kennel staff could guarantee and honor their obligation to keep barking levels low. Previously, I communicated my concerns regarding potential barking during the comment period for the kennel's mitigated negative declaration and was assured by the county that we would not be able to hear any noises from the kennel. This assertion from the county was not accurate and we could hear barking regularly from the kennel. I am not willing to "wait and see" if kennel staff can control the barking originating from 250 dogs. I don't want to come into conflict to defend my right to neighborhood peacefulness, and thus I must stand vehemently opposed to the proposed use permit modification. My neighbors are similarly disturbed by the proposalfor increased dogs and we have formed a community action group show our unified opposition. You will find an attachment with a statement of opposition to increase the number of dogs at the kennel and signatures of residents in my vicinity. Another issue the county may consider is that dog waste could also be an increasing problem as I believe there may already be disposaltroubles and fowl smells associated with the current operation. The requested 250 dogs would lead to mounting waste and could potentially contribute to point source creek pollution. I hope you consider the surrounding community and the effect additional barking will have on the peace of mind of the residents adjacent to the kennel facility. I strongly object to the increase in dogs next to my home. My husband and I have worked very hard to improve our property and have invested thousands of dollars into our home and land. We purchased a much distressed parcel and have consistently planted trees and shrubs and cleaned the watershed of garbage, increasing the neighborhood value. We are both financially and emotionally invested in the long term quality of life in our little neighborhood on Murphy Avenue. I urge ypq tq strongly limit the numþet d dogg tq Z0 gq long as the kenne! can (eep þafking minimized. We do not support the proposal to have up to 250 dogs and the potential for significant barking next to our property. Please feel free to contact me regarding this proposed change in the use permit. I would be glad to exchange any additional information that you may need. Thank you for your time and consideration Julia King Murphy Ave San Martin, CA

268 Murphy Avenue Association December 3,2016 Subject: Opposition to the increase in total number of permitted dogs at the Operation Freedom Paws Kennel at Llagas Ave, San Martin, CA 95046' Statement: We the residents ofthe Murphy Association are opposed to the increase number of dogs at the Operation Freedom Kennel per the notice of development proposal and use permit modification as by the County of Santa Clara, November 2016 We do not wish to be exposed to potential peak noise disturbance noise generated by barking dogs. The from such an increase does not match current neighborhood ambient noise Cunentþ, barking is attributed to up to 70 dogs at the kennel. An increase to to 250 dogs as described in the use permit notification provided by Santa County represents an unacceptable level of barking nuisance to our community. We do not support the proposed Paws and request that this proposal barking originating from the kennel Members of the Murphy Avenue from 70 to 250 dogs at the Operation Freedom denied to protect our neighborhood from nuisance at Operation Freedom Paws. include: Julia and Michael King MurphyAvenue San Ma tin, CA It j 4so t3110 rvtúãw kvú. Stnl fl0,orrn, A qsdb ktò a e-sost

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282 Napier, Michele From: Sent: To: Subject: Smoochie Wonderdog < gmail.com > Wednesday, May!7, :31 4M Napier, Michele Conditional use permit: Operation Freedom Paws Bonnie Lee POBox297 Red Lake Falls, MN l lfay 17,2017 Re: Conditional use permit; Operation Freedom Paws Santa Clara County Planning Commission 70 W. Hedding Street, 7th Floor San Jose, CA (408) 29e-s770 Dear fine people of the Planning Commission; My name is Bonnie Lee and I am legally disabled Throughout my life I've had multiple traumatic events that included physical domestic violence. The accumulated years of domestic violence and other multiple trauma eventually lead me to develop Post Traumatic Stress. Where once I was a thriving, productive adult with a career as an ICU Registered Nurse and also as a professional artist; I was plummeted into a life of massive panic attacks, agoraphobia and severe depression with anxiety. My life was a living hell. Years went by and I was either unable to leave my home or had to have assistance to leave my home to accomplish simple things like shopping. The massive panic attacks resulted in multiple emergency room visits, prescriptions for Xanax and major anti-depressive medications. I routinely saw a handful of psychiatrists, psychologists and behavioral modification specialists. stands as a witness to the that none o I was unable to attend my children's school activities, I lost most of my füends and we were living in poverty on Social Security Disability. My life seemed pretty hopeless and meaningless. Six years ago I received a Service Dog named Smoochie. Although the federal law allows for individuals to train their own service dog, and I had experience with training our own animals, I was so broken that training 1

283 my own dog proved to be an impossible task. Then, I found Operation Freedom Paws Operation Freedom Paws is just so far beyond, 'dog trainers'. OFP trains the service dog and the disabled person as a TEAM and that is trulv made the difference for me. They not only explained the law, and how to properly handle ourselves in public; they also supported us emotionally as we went through this process. They taught me to trust my dog when he cues to me. They taught me to focus outside of myself through the use of the dog and watching him. They taught us specific tasks to train my service dog that help me mitigate my way through each day whether it be here at home or out in public. Most importantly they taught me that I was not alone. I believe that saved my life. Directly because of the training, support and guidance that we received through Operation Freedom Paws, I was able to discontinue the Xanax and the anti-depression medication. OFP also doesn't just 'train a dog' and turn you loose, OFP INVESTS in you over the long haul because they understand that this is not a fast and easy fix. As a direct result of this; I have improved so much and am leading such a healthy life that this February I returned to school and am renewing my RN license. I'm on target to return to work as an RN in July, I will be coming off of social security disability and this will save the American tax payers the roughly $300,000 I would have received had I stayed on disability until retirement age. All of this is possible because of Operation Freedom Paws THANK YOU for considering granting their conditional use permit so that more people like me can lead a better life. Most respectfully, Bonnie Lee and Smoochie the Wonderdog 2