12 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

there were no plans to develop and they should not expect a development on that property in the future at all. He indicated that that really removed their concerns, and they did not come down and address the rezoning. Mr. Bowen stated that he thinks it would be worth going back and looking at some of the additional comments made about the zoning changes, that they were just finding spaces to accommodate the lawsuit that occurred. He noted that the City was really put in a spot in that lawsuit, but now there are developments that are either existing, being built, or in the process of being approved which make Las Positas a high-density housing corridor and will have a significant impact on the Parkside community. He added that on one side, they have a wonderful sports park that they are proud of and grateful for; it does create noise for them, but the benefits far outweigh the detriments. He noted that they do have noise from the sports park that is actually currently reflected off of the buildings on their backside which is along the Arroyo. Mr. Bowen stated that one other thing they heard discussion about this specific project is the adjacent property, and the Parkside community would very strongly appreciate a review of the zoning of the adjacent property to have an even larger housing development next to this 177-dwelling unit property, and which would have a much more significant impact on them than this current project has. Mr. Bowen stated that they appreciate the concessions that have been made on the part of Summerhill, who has listened to the concerns expressed and have made the efforts to make the project more tolerable for them. He noted, however, that they have a few specific concerns that he would like to raise, one of which has to do with the sound wall. He indicated that he has a background in acoustics, and the term that is been used, "sound wall," is a bit of a misnomer. He explained that sound reflects off of hard objects, and that is why recording studios tend to be made up of very soft objects. He noted that masonry has about the lowest co-efficient absorption of sound of any material out there: only.02 percent of sound that strikes masonry is absorbed; 99.98 percent of the sound is reflected. He pointed out that on the proposed property site, there is going to be a lot of sound reflected back where the trees are towards the residents. He indicated that although they would like a wall for improved privacy and to reduce the noise that comes from the development, they will also face a competing problem which is the reflection of sound that could come from Hopyard Road and from the sports park, and they may actually be increasing the noise level that they experience now apart from whatever noise comes from the development itself. He indicated that the nature of the acoustic properties of a flat masonry wall is to reflect more noise directly back at the residents,from sirens and cars on Hopyard to soccer goals at the sports park. He stated that there are two ways to address this issue: one is to create a wall that diffuses sound that could still be made of masonry; and a. nother is to make the wall out of material that is more absorptive of the sound. He added that a combination of both of those is best, and asked that a study be made by a professional acoustic engineer on how best to reduce the negative acoustic properties of that wall. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 22, 2014 Page 6 of 16