CCMIN090611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember McGovern disclosed that she attended a neighborhood meeting, spoke to many residents and visited the house. In the minutes of the Planning Commission Mr. Fulford is quoted as stating there was a second study done which suggests that both trees could be preserved if judicial pruning took place which would make them good trees that could last in the landscape for a very long time. Mr. Fulford said this is true, but one would not want to have any development nearby or have trees in a place where people were. Councilmember McGovern added that there was a big difference with a 15-gallon tree and a tree that has a girth of 29 feet. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Table 2 on page 8 of the staff report. He noted train horns generate from 89 dBA to 112 dBA at a 75 foot distance from the train. The last time the Council discussed equivalent noise examples. A pile driver is about 90 dBA, which is very loud. 112 dBA is also a significant jump and he believed that 75 feet from the train would greatly impact the site. He asked if there was an outdoor noise policy for backyards. Mr. Dolan said yes; it is 60 dBA and can rise to 65 dBA when the source of the noise is a train. Councilmember Sullivan pointed out that there is almost double the noise standard for lots 6, 7 and 8, and Mr. Dolan said necessary reductions are achieved to meet the General Plan requirements with one exception—when a whistle blows. He was at the site today and a train went by and it was very loud when 2 whistles blew. He agreed that anyone living in these lots would have to tolerate it. As soon as this is added into the calculations, the requirements cannot be made when the whistle blows and this is the only exception being proposed. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Table 2 and the far right column; 'Interior Sound Level Bedroom 2', and said it shows a range for Lot 1 of 52 to 75 dBA. Mr. Dolan said this was measured when the whistle was blowing. There is some variation, but there will be a maximum noise level of up to 75 dBA in a bedroom and it would be loud and similar to standing next to a busy freeway. While staff is not suggesting this is a good thing, they also note that this noise environment exists in hundreds of homes in the community, and this is one reason why staff did not feel it should hold this particular development to that standard. Councilmember Sullivan suggested that the City might want to recognize or decide that some are mistakes and the City should stop allowing this at some point in time instead of just continuing it. Mr. Dolan agreed that this was the Council's prerogative. Councilmember Sullivan questioned the level of train engine and wheel noise, and Mr. Dolan directed him to information which was contained in the report. Councilmember McGovern referred to setbacks along the railroad tracks. She questioned and confirmed that the closest homes were 57 feet away from the tracks, and believed, therefore, that the noise would be greater due to the 75 foot measurement. Mr. Dolan said all calculations in the study used the real setbacks, and he deferred to the noise consultant. Councilmember McGovern asked to condition the project with full buyer disclosure on noise levels, and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the Planning Commission had added such a condition; that the noise impacts the occupants would have to live with needed to specifically be disclosed. Councilmember McGovern referred to Table 1 on Exhibit L and questioned whether the consultant measured noise from 75 or 57 feet. Mr. Dolan suggested clarification from the noise consultant. Mayor Hosterman suggested something be included in the disclosure that addresses the number of times the whistle can blow during the daytime and evening. She knows the usage of the railroad track has increased recently and is much more active in the evening/early morning hours. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 16 September 6,2011