PC 021104 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ Mr. Miers displayed the interior site plan, accommodating the animals' holding and socialization areas as well as classroom areas. He noted that the two exterior colors were intended to reduce the massing and to make the appearance from the street more playful. He noted that they designed the walls to mitigate the sound of the bazking dogs. He noted that outside the building, the wall reduced the decibel level to between 35-40 decibels for an average dog barking. He noted that there were high and low frequency barks and that high yelps may reach 50 decibels immediately outside the door, but that was not an average reading. He noted that 150 feet away, the decibel would be between 15-20 decibels. He assured the Planning Commission that noise and odors would not be an issue. Commissioner Fox suggested reorienting the interior so that the dogs lived in the front of the building and the cats in the back in order to decrease the potential noise to the residents across the arroyo. Mr. Fukishima did not believe that would have any effect on the decibel level measured across the way, given the sound reduction measures on the wall. He noted that the series ofsound-attenuating walls were already designed to reduce the noise and added that there were very few dogs that would be held. He noted that they would not be held in a normal kennel-type situation, such as the Tri-Valley SPCA facility. He noted that they would pipe music into the rooms, which would help settle the animals. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin regarding animal waste disposal, Mr. Miers advised that the solid waste would be scooped, bagged, and washed down with chemical treatments. He noted that this facility would most likely use a piped, pre-mixed chemical cleaning system that would go into the sanitary sewer system. He noted that the solid waste could also be retained internally for the night before being disposed into the dumpster. He added that the number of animals was relatively small compared to a normal, larger facility. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson advised that the distance from the back property line to the tap of the arroyo was approximately 10 to 30 feet. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Miers confirmed that a geotechnical soils analysis was performed by Crays and Associates. He noted that the consultants made a recommendation for spread footings and felt comfortable about the borings that they took on-site. He noted that the report has not been submitted to staff since it would normally be submitted with the building permit application but that they would be happy to send one to staff for review. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Miers advised that because dogs lived on-site, a 24/7 technician would be on the premises; an emergency phone number would also be posted. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox, Mr. Stegman replied that there would not be a drop-off for dog surrender like the East County facility. By law, anon-profit PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 2004 Page 7 of 19