12 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

At the Planning Commission work session on January 22, 2014, the applicant proposed a six- foot high block wall with stucco finish to buffer the proposed development from Arroyo Mocho and the existing Parkside neighborhood located on the south side of the arroyo. In response to a request from the residents, Charles Salter&Associates, the acoustic consultant who prepared the noise study for proposed development, addressed acoustic concerns regarding the potential for noise genera ted from roadways and activities at the sports park to be reflected from the proposed wall back to the residents in Parkside neighbors (Exhibit H). The study indicated the proposed wall and the fields at the sports park are separated by one to five rows of homes, Arroyo Mocho, and a wall on the south side of the arroyo. Noise from the sports park would be shielded by the homes and the existing wall along the south side of the arroyo and attenuated by the distance before it reaches the proposed wall. As such, the potential increase in noise, as a result of wall reflection, would be two decibels or less, which would not be noticeable. As the proposal includes planting vines on the north side of the wall and along the wall, it would help to reduce focused reflections to the existing residences. The study pointed out that if the wall height is increased from the proposed six feet to eight feet, it would help reduce vehicle noise generated by the tenants/visitors of the apartment complex by 1-2 decibels. In a meeting with Parkside neighborhood group on February 11, 2014, the neighbors commented on the wall surface so that noise from sports park would not be reflected directly back toward the existing residential area. The project noise consultant, Charles Salter & Associates reevaluated the wall design and stated the following in a memo dated February 20, 2014: Barrier Reflections: You have asked if noise from the roadways and sports fields south of existing residences(across the canal)will be reflected back to those residences.The noise barrier will be precast concrete with a textured"grapestake"surface. Planted vines will be added on-site, and will grow to the canal side of the wall.These features will help reduce reflectivity of the barrier. In addition,shielding from the intervening houses(generally one to five rows)and distance attenuation from the reflected path-of-travel across the canal will help limit reflected noise.The noise barrier is estimated to increase average noise levels from vehicles on these roadways, and occupants moving around the sports fields, by 2 decibels or less, which would not be distinguishable at the existing residences. Staff has added a condition requiring the design of the wall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development during plan review stage. In addition, the resident group prefers an eight-foot high wall to a six-foot high wall. Staff is supporting either a six foot or an eight foot wall. A copy of the memo is attached (Exhibit H). The Parkside residents commented on the trash enclosure location at Building D, and would like it to be relocated to reduce the noise of garbage trucks coming down the alley. The applicant revised the trash enclosure area by adding a wall so that garbage trucks would not. need to use the alley. They would use the internal streets to access to the trash enclosure area by Building D and then continue their route out. Staff has added a condition requiring the applicant/the apartment complex management office to use their best effort to work with Pleasanton Garbage Service to not use alley during pickup. PUD-103/Summerhll Apartment Communities Planning Commission Page 21 of 34