CCMIN090313 - Laserfiche WebLink

introduce the draft ordinance, adopt a resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement, adopt a resolution approving the Growth Management Agreement, and introduce the draft ordinance approving the Development Agreement. Councilmember Brown referred to the staff report, which indicates a exterior noise level of 75 decibels while the General Plan recommends nothing more than 65 decibels for multi-family developments. She asked whether the applicant has a contingency plan if the landscape plantings do not achieve the noise attenuation envisioned. Mr. Dolan conceded that the adjacent freeway is a major source of noise and that the General Plan identifies a goal of 65 decibels. However, the General Plan also acknowledges that certain mitigations, such as an exceptionally high sound wall, can be aesthetically unsuccessful. He explained that the project was designed with a large setback and the taller buildings bordering the freeway, which does provide some attenuation for the rest of the project. 9 homes in the southwest corner of the site also have 8 foot high fences between them to provide additional mitigation. He noted that the area in question is for vehicular access and parking only and is not intended to host any other exterior activity. All of the outdoor space dedicated to that is in the interior courtyard, which does meet the General Plan's standard. He also noted that the interior of each unit will achieve the same levels required throughout town, as required per the building code. He explained that the tradeoff in forgoing an 18-foot noise wall in order achieve a quiet parking lot is that they were able to concentrate on the outdoor areas that would actually be used and provide a better visual experience when entering or driving past the project. Councilmember Pentin asked and staff confirmed that the city has the ability to control whether or not a sound wall is ever installed there. Mayor Thorne called attention to the fact that the traffic generated by the project will be significantly less than what would have been with the office complex. Scott Trobbe, Pleasanton Gateway, thanked staff for the thorough report and for their assistance throughout the 6 year process. With regard to noise, he explained that aesthetics from the freeway was very important to them and they agreed with staff that a berm or large sound wall was not the ideal solution. Early on in the Housing Element process, they recognized that building mass and setback to shield the rest of the site was going to be the best way to address what is an obvious issue. He acknowledged that the parking area would be noisy but noted that exterior spaces are allowed to reach levels as high as 75 decibels, provided they are not recreational in nature. Councilmember Brown agreed with the desire not to install a berm or large wall and that the trees would likely mature into better sound buffers. She explained that her concern was noise levels on 1-680 would likely only increase, perhaps exceeding 75 decibels, and these measures would prove insufficient. Mr. Trobbe noted that the conditions of approval require that all rental agreements disclose projected noise levels. He agreed that 1-680 will likely be more impacted than it is at present but also noted that Caltrans is working with new paving technologies that could one day be employed here. Mr. Dolan explained that the noise calculations and mitigations actually accommodate a 14% increase over current conditions. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked the applicant to explain what universal design means relative to this project. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12 September 3,2013