A resident told the Cypress City Council on June 23 that his mother‑in‑law is being forced to consider moving because of persistent noise and vibration that neighbors attribute to nearby sewer or park infrastructure; city staff said the planned sewer video evaluation is focused on compliance inspections and may not identify the intermittent noise source, but staff will continue to assist.

Gary Hammerman, who said his mother‑in‑law Susan Hobart bought her home in 1967 and lives on Cheshire near a motor home park, urged the council to add investigative resources to the sewer system video evaluation to determine the noise source. “Susan's a widow on a fixed income and isn't able to invest a $100,000 to figure out where the noise is coming from,” Hammerman said. He said neighbors report vibrations at night and asked the council to consider additional engineering work to diagnose and mitigate the issue.

Mayor Burke asked staff whether the private acoustics report Hammerman referenced had been sent to city staff. Public Works staff (identified in the transcript as Nick) said the sewer video evaluation project covers about 20% of the sewer system to meet state compliance requirements and was not designed specifically to locate intermittent night‑time noise. "This project was to just evaluate about 20% of our sewer system for state compliance," staff said. Staff told the council they have already performed cleaning, videoing of the line, and had coordinated with utility providers including SoCal Edison and Golden State Water to try to identify the source; those inspections did not identify the source of the reported sounds.

What staff will do: staff said they remain willing to work with Mrs. Hobart and neighbors and asked that any additional data (timing, audio/video files, or the noise consultant's report) be forwarded to city staff to assist targeted investigation. The city reported that a private noise consultant, MD Acoustics, has taken measurements in the area but that follow‑up readings were not completed by the resident.

Context and limits: staff emphasized that because the CIP‑listed video evaluation is a compliance project, adding a specialized acoustic investigation would be a separate scope and could require additional funding. The video evaluation contractor had not observed the noise during their inspections and staff said the area lacks pumps for storm drain or sewer that some consultants had suggested might explain sounds in other contexts.

Ending: Council members encouraged the resident to provide available data to staff and asked staff to continue outreach to utility agencies and affected neighbors as they try to localize the noise source and evaluate mitigation options.