Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chair Narum noted that the Commission directionally wants to minimize shading <br />impacts for the neighbor. <br /> <br />The Commissioners concurred not to shade the PV panels. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whether this meant zero shading at all times of the year. <br /> <br />The Commissioners agreed that it meant minimizing or avoiding it if possible and that <br />the Commission would need to see the revised plans. <br /> <br />12. Noise and Vibration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if, when a person purchases a house near railroad tracks <br />and there is disclosure, the train is still obligated to meet the 60dBA interior noise limit. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto stated that the requirement is normally 60dBA outside and 45dBA inside, <br />except when the property abuts railroad tracks or is subject to railroad noise, which then <br />becomes 70dBA outside LDN, 50dBA L-max in the bedrooms, and 55dBA L-max in <br />other rooms. He noted that the whistle or horn noise are difficult to mitigate. He added <br />that the General Plan does allow staff and the Planning Commission to look at not <br />necessarily following the standard if it cannot be done. He indicated that In order to <br />meet the actual horn noise inside the homes at 50dBA and 55dBA, a 29-foot high sound <br />wall would have to be installed along the train tracks which would have to wrap all the <br />way up to Stanley Boulevard at varying heights. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that the Commission has approved projects along the <br />Foothill Road corridor where it did not require the internal mitigation of the train noise <br />but plain language disclosure of the presence of the train, vibration, whistling, and horn <br />blowing. He recommended that staff ensure this language is included because he <br />would hate for this to be used as a reason for the City to be responsible for a 29-foot tall <br />sound wall when the Commission has not required it in other locations. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the issue that came up at the City Council meeting was that the <br />Council was supportive of the same approach, that there be some tolerance for those <br />brief periods of time when the whistle blows, and that the City would not try to mitigate <br />or include that in the average. He noted that for information purposes, Councilmember <br />Sullivan inquired what it is the residents would be subjected to at that particular period. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin stated that he had received sufficient direction and had no further comments. <br />He confirmed he was clear on what he had heard and will discuss with staff any <br />outstanding questions he has. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 20 of 41 <br /> <br />