The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About54-14 RESOLUTION 54-14 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT # 11-13 MISC. WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club has submitted an application for an amendment of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") Municipal Code and the applicable Conditional Use Permit to construct outdoor lighting on five of their ten existing tennis courts ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Town has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA levels of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures and enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was available for public comment form June 4, 2014 to June 24, 2014; and WHEREAS,no public comment was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 24, 2014 to consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2014, to consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, [including all comment letters submitted], and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et seq. ("CEQA")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan (2008); the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed application, including all written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on June 24, 2014; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as Resolution 54-14 Page 1 part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on August 21, 2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached as Exhibit A) are incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Town of Los Altos Hills Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, and in the custody of The City Clerk, Deborah Padovan. 4. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the following findings regarding the environmental analysis of the Project: a. An initial study was prepared for the proposed Project and a mitigated negative declaration analyzed, the potential for impacts. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that approval of the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. b. Design features of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project will not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, and as further documented in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, additional mitigation measures beyond those established in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are not required for the Project. c. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a significant environmental effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project, attached as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of August, 2014 by the following vote: Resolution 54-14 Page 2 AYES: Radford, Corrigan, Harpootlian, Larsen, Waldeck NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BY: ohn Radford, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah P_adovan, City Clerk 2308663.1 Resolution 54-14 Page 3 Exhibit A INITIAL .STUDY Initial Study/Mitigated Negative.Declaration Fremont Mills Country Club -- Tennis Court Lighting Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment Project #11-13 Misc. Town of Los Altos Hills-Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Resolution 54-14 Page 4 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 2 of 40 In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, this document, combined with the attached supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the subject project. This initial study provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report will be prepared which focuses on the area of concern identified by this initial study. If it is determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, it is eligible for a Negative Declaration. If it is determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, the significant effects of the project have been reduced to a less-than-significant level because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to be the project applicant, then the project would be eligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Public Review: In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a 20-day public review period for this IS commenced on June 4, 2014, and will conclude on June 24, 2014. The Draft IS has been distributed to interested or involved public agencies, organizations, and individuals for review. During the public review period, the public will have an opportunity to provide written comments on the information contained within this Draft IS. The public comments on the Draft IS and responses to public comments will be incorporated into the Final IS. The Town's Planning Commission and City Council will use the Final IS for all environmental decisions related to this proposed project. In reviewing the Draft IS, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should,focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential project impacts on the environment, and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the Draft IS should be submitted in writing prior to the end of the 20-day public review period and must be postmarked by June 24, 2014. Please submit written comments to: Cynthia Richardson, Consultant Planner Town of Los Altos Hills, Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: 650 941-7222 Email: crichardson@losaltoshills.ca.gov Resolution 54-14 Page 5 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 3 of 40 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Fremont Hills Country Club, Tennis Court Lighting project, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, and California 94022. 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Community Development Director(650) 941-7222. 4. Initial Study prepared by: Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department (650) 941-7222. 5. Project Location: 12889 Viscaino Place,Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 APN 175-55-049 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Fremont Hills Country Club, 12889 Viscaino Place,Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-2519. 7. General Plan Designation: RA-PR(Private Recreation Area) 8. Zoning: R-A(Residential-Agricultural) 9. Introduction: Fremont Hills Country Club was established in 1957 as a social and recreational club. The Club is located at 12889 Viscaino Place in the Town of Los Altos Hills and sits on approximately 17 acres. The property contains a riding facility, Olympic-size pool, fitness center, restaurant, snack bar, changing rooms, 10 tennis courts and a main clubhouse. The Club serves members from Los Altos Hills and surrounding communities. In addition, nonmembers can use the Club to participate in swimming, tennis and equestrian programs and the clubhouse may be rented for special events. The Club operates under a Conditional Use Permit and is the only private social and recreational club located within the Town of Los Altos Hills. Fremont Hills Country Club is currently the only parcel within the Town to maintain a General Plan Designation of "Private Recreation Area"(RA-PR). 10. Local Setting: The Town of Los Altos Hills is located in northwestern Santa Clara County. It is located south of Palo Alto and west of Los Altos. Interstate I-280 bisects the Town in a north-south direction. The Town consists mainly of low-density residential development with minimum lot sizes of one acre and no commercial or industrial uses. The residential neighborhoods mainly feature large privately owned properties on medium to steep terrain with single-family houses, expansive open spaces, mature trees and private recreational facilities such as swimming pools, barns and tennis courts. The streets in the Town are mainly comprised of narrow, curvilinear residential streets with few direct crosstown Resolution 54-14 Page 6 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 4 of 40 connections or connections to the external roadway system. Sidewalks are not present in order to maintain the rural character of the community. Public street lighting is minimal in most neighborhoods, although vegetation and lighting within private properties add to the visual setting of the area. 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Fremont Hills Country Club is located in the north-central part of the Town at 12889 Viscaino Place in Los Altos Hills and is located approximately 300 feet east of I-280. Surrounding land uses include one and two story single-family residences with minimum lot size of 1 acre. The Club is bordered by Purissima Road, Roble Ladera and Viscaino Roads and is adjacent to Purissima Park, the Town's public recreation area. 12. Project Description: The proposed project includes amending Title 10 Zoning and Site Development, Chapter 2 Site Development, Article 10 Outdoor Lighting, Section 1002 Recreation courts of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to allow tennis court lighting on properties with the General Plan Designation of RA-PR (Private Recreation Area). The project includes modifications to the Fremont Hills Country Club Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of tennis court lighting on five existing tennis courts to extend the hours of tennis playtime. 13. Other public agencies whose approval is required:None Resolution 54-14 Page 7 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 5 of 40 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The following section includes the Environmental Evaluation checklist from the CEQA guidelines. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ZAesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards&Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Emissions Materials Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information and conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staff research and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. FO I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Resolution 54-14 Page 8 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 6 of 40 ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature: Date: Debbie Pedro,AICP, Community Development Director Resolution 54-14 Page 9 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 7 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with Significa_nt Significant. No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation Impact I.AESTHETICS--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jf scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ [J1 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ Q ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light ❑ Q ❑ ❑ or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: This section summarizes the potential aesthetic impacts related to the proposed project based on the Impact Report prepared by James R. Benya (Exhibit A) and the ACG Engineers,Peer review, dated April 29, 2014(Exhibit B). a-b) The existing visual and aesthetic character of the Town of Los Altos Hills is of a rural low- density residential area. Much of the Town is dominated by hillsides, heavy native vegetation and rolling hills. The meandering streets are lined with native vegetation and there are no paved urban sidewalks or streetlights in order to retain the rural atmosphere of the Town. For the purposes of this analysis, views include, but are not limited to, skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges, and bodies of water. However, the perception of aesthetic or visual conditions and the evaluation of visual impacts are subjective and vary depending on the outlook of the viewer. Although I-280 is not an official designated Scenic Highway within Santa Clara County, it does present an important view of the Town as drivers pass through the Town. No scenic resources will be negatively affected within the I-280 corridor. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources in a state scenic highway. Resolution 54-14 Page 10 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 8 of 40 c-d) The Country Club site already consists of buildings with wall-mounted light fixtures near windows and doors, lighted pathways, lights along the parking areas and driveway and within the outdoor public areas. The proposed project would increase the amount of lighting at the five out of ten tennis court sites only. Each of the five courts will have fully shielded, 1,000-watt metal halide tennis court luminaires mounted at 22 feet above the court surface on poles. The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) considers these types of lights to be "Dark Sky Friendly". Due to the fully shielded fixture there is no direct light emitted into the sky and no impacts from a direct light source will intrude into surrounding areas or neighborhoods. Fremont Hills Country Club is situated near I-280. Vehicles traveling on the highway emit substantial light pollution in the region. Nearby homes are all located above the tops of the proposed luminaires, there will be no direct viewing of the light sources from any residence. Views from the west(across the freeway)and the east should be substantially blocked by the dark backdrops of the tennis court fencing. Views from the south are blocked by topography and the existing equestrian center. Trees block court views from homes to the north. Existing topography, perimeter landscaping, dark court playing surfaces, shielded fixtures and tennis court screen-fencing will buffer any new sources of lighting under the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation measures below would reduce potential light and glare impacts to a level that is less-than-significant with mitigation. MITIGATION: MM-Aesthetics — 1) All light fixtures shall be equipped with light cutoff shields in order to eliminate glare and light spillage beyond the tennis court fencing. MM-Aesthetics —2) Courts not being actively played shall not be lighted. Motion detectors or some similar self-controlling means shall be required. MM-Aesthetics—3) All tennis court lighting shall be timer controlled and shall have overriding time clocks, which shut lights off automatically after one hour if the courts are not in use. There shall also be a master time clock, which prevents lights from being turned on before sunset and after 10:00 p.m. MM-Aesthetics—4)All tennis court fencing shall maintain dark mesh backdrop covers and dark court surfaces. Sources: 1,3,5,6,19,20,21,22 Resolution 54-14 Page 11 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 9 of 40 an Potentially` Less -Less Than Significant with Significant ' Significant.' No Impact, -Mitigation. Im`ac p .,t = Impact Incorporation . H.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: a-c)According to the 2012 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(FMMP)from the State Department of Conservation,the project site is in an area that is designated as Urban,Built-Up Land and Other Land. Other Land is not considered farmland;therefore,the proposed project would have no impact on farmlands. MITIGATION:None Source: 8 Resolution 54-14 Page 12 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 10 of 40 of es P entialiy L s Than Less Than Signifcant SQfi with , , Signiica ntLQatio . No Impact Impact Impact; Incorporation III.AIR QUALITY--Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ RJ the applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ® ❑ ❑ Q standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) Santa Clara County is currently a non-attainment basin for ozone thresholds but achieves an attainment level for carbon monoxide emissions. The proposed project will not increase any emissions or contribute to substantial pollutant concentrations Little to no grading work is expected for the construction of the new tennis court light standards. Delivery trucks and debris removal trucks are expected. None of these construction activities could potentially effect air quality or create objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on air quality. MITIGATION:None Source: 9 Resolution 54-14 Page 13 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 11 of 40 ,Less Than if es I Potentially L s Than` Significant with Significant, Mitigation Significant. No mpact . Impact . Impact Incorporation IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, ❑ ❑ ❑ sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ❑ ❑ ❑ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ❑ ❑ ❑ Q resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Resolution 54-14 Page 14 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 12 of 40 DISCUSSION: a-f) The project site is developed with existing asphalt tennis courts and other hardscape improvements. The proposed pole mounted light fixtures would be placed within the existing tennis court surface. The 22-foot tall light fixtures have been designed to not spill light nor illuminate any areas beyond the immediate vicinity of the courts. No known Biologic resources exist within the project area and therefore would not have an adverse effect on Biologic Resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on Biological Resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,5,6,10,17 Resolution 54-14 Page 15 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 13 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact b Mitigation b Impact Impact Incorporation V.CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ Q in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ Q pursuant to'15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-c)The proposed project would not conflict with any cultural resources identified in the General Plan. The construction to install the new light standards is located within the existing tennis court footprint therefore it would be highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would be unearthed. The addition of the tennis court lighting would not have any impacts to cultural resources. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact on cultural resources. d) No human remains are known to be buried in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there is a low likelihood that human remains would be encountered. Nonetheless, the potential exists for previously undiscovered human remains to be encountered during ground 0 disturbing activities. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. This impact is potentially significant, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures. MITIGATION: MM — Cultural Resources — 5) The applicant shall ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if human remains are discovered during construction activities. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50 foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains Resolution 54-14 Page 16 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 14 of 40 are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall re❑inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Sources: 3,5,16 Resolution 54-14 Page 17 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 15 of 40 Less Than PotentiallyLess Than Significant with Si nificant. Significant. No Impact Nhtigation impact Impact Incorporation V1.GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q liquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ❑ ❑ ❑ Q on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ Q where sewers are not available for the-disposal of waste water? Resolution 54-14 Page 18 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 16 of 40 DISCUSSION: a-e) The proposed project would not have a geologic impact because the project site is located outside of any Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones as shown on the Cotton, Shires & Associates Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zone Map dated March 2009. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on Geology and Soils. MITIGATION: None Sources: 12, 17 Resolution 54-14 Page 19 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 17 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than Sionificant with Significant SiQnifcant . No Impact -- NtiatlonImPact ImP act-Incorporation VH.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS--Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ❑ Q directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term emissions. Emissions would primarily originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, as well as employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust. Little to no grading work is expected for the construction of the new light standards. Delivery trucks and debris removal trucks are expected; because construction emission sources would cease once construction is complete, they are considered short-term. Increased motor vehicle trips to the project site, due to the increased tennis court playtime would cause negligible level of increased emissions. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions. MITIGATION: None Sources: 9 Resolution 54-14 Page 20 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 18 of 40 Less Than -Potentially Less Than -Significant witlf Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to,the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ [� involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Resolution 54-14 Page 21 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 19 of 40 DISCUSSION: a-h) The proposed project does not produce a hazard or hazardous waste and will have no foreseeable impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The site is not located in an identified location according to CA Government Code 65962.5. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on hazards and hazardous materials. MITIGATION:None Sources: 13 Resolution 54-14 Page 22 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 20 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with S►anificant Significant No Impact b Mitigation Impact - Impact Incorporation IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ Q discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ ❑ ❑ Q stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jf g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ [✓( flows? Resolution 54-14 Page 23 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 21 of 40 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ® ❑ ❑ Q including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: a j) The project site contains a seasonal water course running in a north south direction along the eastern property boundary and is approximately 160 feet from the project (court#8). A grading and drainage plan was implemented at the time of construction of the existing tennis court improvements. No changes are proposed to the existing drainage of the project site. Since the proposed project would have no increase on the amount of impervious area that could increase the amount of water runoff,there would be no affect on hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on hydrology and water quality. MITIGATION: None Sources: 11,14,17 Resolution 54-14 Page 24 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 22 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X.LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ Q conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a& c)The proposed project would not divide an established community as it would occur within an area that is currently used as a private social club. The project site is not located within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project site maintains conservation easements on portions of the eastern side of the property, however these areas are not part of an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. b) Currently the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-2.1002 does not permit lighting of tennis courts and other recreational courts within the Town. A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed with this project, which will allow tennis court lights on properties with a General Plan Designation of RA-PR (Private Recreation Area). At this time, the Fremont Hills Country Club is the only property within the Town that maintains this General Plan designation. The Town's General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states, "The private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility." The proposed project provides tennis courts that can be used in evening hours and by those that may not be available to play during the day. In addition, the access to evening play allows for USTA (United States Tennis Association) interclub sponsored tennis matches. The club does not have any areas with "stadium" seating or viewing areas for large numbers of people. According to the Fremont Hills Country Club General Manager, most Resolution 54-14 Page 25 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 23 of 40 matches have approximately 12 players and will last about 1-2 hours and will occupy approximately 3 to 4 courts. The Town's General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.7 states, "Park and recreation areas shall be utilized, and uses controlled, so as to not adversely affect the surrounding residential areas". As discussed in this document any adverse affects can be mitigated to a less than significant impact so that adjacent neighbors are not negatively affected. Private Recreation Clubs are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, Section 10-1.703(d). As part of the proposed project, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the property's Conditional Use Permit to allow tennis court lighting on five of the 10 existing tennis courts. If the Zoning Ordinance amendment is approved, then the proposed project would be consistent with the Zoning Code resulting in a less-than-significant impact. MITIGATION:None Sources: 4,5,6 Resolution 54-14 Page 26 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 24 of 40 Less Than Potentially- Less Than Significant with Significant .- Si-t.nifica'ht . No Impact - Impact .. IVlitigation .. Impact Incorporation XI.MINERAL RESOURCES-- Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b)The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. MITIGATION:None Sources: 5,6,17 Resolution 54-14 Page 27 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 25 of 40 Less Than Potentially` Less Than SiQni6cant with - Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact . Incorporation XII.NOISE--Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ Q ❑ in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ Q ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ Q ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ Q residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: This section summarizes the potential noise impacts related to the proposed project based on the noise assessment reports prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics (Exhibit C) and the Charles M. Salter, Peer review (Exhibit D). a-d) The new lights located on five of the existing ten tennis courts associated with this project, will increase tennis play time into the evening hours. In addition, the access to evening play allows for the Club to host USTA (United States Tennis Association) interclub sponsored tennis matches. There are no areas with "stadium" seating or viewing for large numbers of people which would increase noise levels. Resolution 54-14 Page 28 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 26 of 40 The Town's General Plan exterior noise standards were developed based on the State noise compatibility guidelines for land use planning.The Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan,Noise Element, Goal 2,Program 2.2 and Figure 7-4,Land Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines indicate that outdoor sports and recreation,Neighborhood parks and playground noise levels below 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL are"normally acceptable". The noise element Goal 1, Policy 1.1 that is applicable to the proposed project, states, "Noise levels shall be compatible with the Town's semi-rural atmosphere and consistent with Town standards." The noise standards indicate that outdoor noise levels for sports and recreation (Figure 7-4,Land use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines)is acceptable below 65 (ldn or CNEL, dB). The project site is located in the I-280 noise corridor with a noise level of 55 CNEL as shown on Figure 7-2 in the General Plan Noise Element. The project site is surrounded by noise associated with local streets, the Town of Los Altos Hills Little League Fields and nearby I-280. These noises contribute to the surrounding ambient noise levels. Noise readings taken by Mei Wu Acoustics in June 2013 indicate that with 12 to 18 players on the courts, noise readings averaged 50.8 dBA at the closest property line adjacent to the property to the north which falls below the General Plan acceptable levels. Based on the noise readings taken at the site and with the added increased noise from the tennis court extended play hours, tennis noise will have a negligible increase. In addition the peer review prepared by Charles Salter Associates maintains the same conclusion that the noise associated from the tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and should go unnoticed. Increased vehicle noise from the proposed project is expected to create noise levels of no more than 36 dBA at the nearest home to the Club. It is expected that this increase will not be audible over existing freeway noise. The ambient noise in this area is such that noise created by the increased tennis court playtimes is negligible and that any increase in noise levels is dwarfed by those from automobile and air traffic. Further, the Fremont Hills Country Club Conditional Use Permit restricts the hours of operation and the use of loud speakers so that noise impacts are minimized. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on noise. e-f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with the aircraft noise. MITIGATION:none Sources: 5,6,23,24 Resolution 54-14 Page 29 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 27 of 40 •L s Than Potentially Less Than Sianificant =Significant with Significant . No Impact t!- b .- Iitigatio - Imact- iv ° Impact Incorporation, XIII.POPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-c) The proposed project will not have a significant impact on population or housing. Therefore; the proposed project would have no impact on population and housing. MITIGATION:None Sources: 3,5 Resolution 54-14 Page 30 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 28 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than ... icant withS�gnifSifcant o S by f c ant Yo ImPactM ti� tainImpact b Imact Incorporation`.. XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES--Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: a) The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on any public service or facility. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact on public services. . MITIGATION: None Sources: 3 Resolution 54-14 Page 31 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 29 of 40 Less.Than -Potentially Significant with Less Than Siel gnificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Impact . Incorporation XV.RECREATION--Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ z ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a) The Town has a limited amount of public recreation areas and facilities, consisting of The Little League Fields, Town Riding Arena, Westwind Community Barn and Edith Park. Private recreation facilities within the Town include Fremont Hills Country Club. Fremont Hills Country Club is the only parcel within the Town that has a General Plan designation of RA-PR (Private Recreation Area). The Los Altos Hills Country Club maintains a riding facility, Olympic-size pool fitness center, restaurant, snack bar, changing rooms, 10 tennis courts and a main clubhouse. The club serves members from Los Altos Hills and surrounding communities. In addition, non-members can use the Club to participate in swimming, tennis and equestrian programs. The Club provides an important part of the Town's recreation facilities. It is unlikely that the increase in tennis play hours will create an increased need for any neighborhood or regional parks in the area. The proposed project would not include new or expanded Town or County park facilities. As such, the construction of the new tennis court lighting would result in a less-than- significant impacts and no mitigation is required. b) As discussed in this document any adverse affects can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Therefore,this project would result in less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION:None Sources: 5,6 Resolution 54-14 Page 32 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 30 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than _,Significant Nith Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation - Impact Incorporation -Impact. XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC— Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant ❑ ❑ [✓f ❑ components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards ❑ ❑ [✓1 ❑ established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ [✓� f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ [.7� g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Resolution 54-14 Page 33 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 31 of 40 DISCUSSION: This section uses information from the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit E) and the TJKM Transportation Consultants,Peer review, dated April 21,2014(Exhibit F). a) The trip distribution forecast was derived from the existing traffic pattern and applied to the anticipated increased trips due to the proposed project. The proposed project has identified an increase in tennis players from 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm. during the winter months, which is the worst- case scenario. The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular project is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rate by the size of the project. Trip generation rates come from empirical research that is compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 9' Edition, 2012. The manual includes trip generation rates for tennis clubs. Using this data, it is anticipated that the project will generate 17 new trips per peak hour for a maximum increase of 102 daily trips (17 trips X 6 hours). Each vehicle accessing the site corresponds to two trips, one trip when it enters and one trip when it exits the site. Based on this data and the data collected in the area, the resulting daily traffic volumes were compared to those identified as typical in the General Plan. Specifically, traffic volumes increased on individual streets as follows: Roble Ladera Road, 0 new trips. Purissima Road south of Rhoda Drive, 50 new trips. Purissima Road north of La Paloma Road, 36 new trips. Viscaino Road, 14 new trips. Viscaino Place, 102 new trips. It should be noted however that this is the worst-case scenario and that traffic generated from this project in longer daylight times of the year would produce less traffic. The worst-case scenario also assumes that all courts are being played at the same time where this may not always be the case. Based on this analysis, all of the roadway segments would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. As such,there would be a less-than-significant impact. b) The proposed project would not conflict with circulation policies implemented by the Town. Further, the proposed project as outlined in the Hexagon Transportation consultants report, would not cause the LOS (Level Of Service) to fall below an acceptable level at any intersection designated as part of project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any Congestion Management Plan,resulting in a less-than-significant impact. c) No components of the proposed project have the potential to impact air traffic patterns. As such, the proposed project would not lead to an increase in air traffic and would have no impact on this mode of travel. d) The surrounding street system would not be reconfigured due to the implementation of the Resolution 54-14 Page 34 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 32 of 40 proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be anticipated to result in no impact due to increased hazards due to design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). e) The proposed project would not modify the surrounding roadway network nor would it significantly increase traffic,the proposed project would have no impact on emergency access. f) The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit and therefore would have no impact to public transportation. NIITIGATION:None Sources: 1,3,5,25,26 Resolution 54-14 Page 35 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 33 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with Si6nificant Significant No-Impact A�Iitigation b Impact Impact Incorporation' XVII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ Q and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ Q statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: Water demand and wastewater discharge generated by the proposed project would be accommodated through the Town's existing water supply, sanitary sewer, and wastewater treatment infrastructure.As such,the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore;the proposed project would have no impact on utilities and service systems. Resolution 54-14 Page 36 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 34 of 40 MITIGATION:None Sources: 1,3,15 Resolution 54-14 Page 37 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 35 of 40 Less Than Potentially Less Than. .Significant with Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE--Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ❑ Q levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q human beings,either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a-c) The proposed project would result in short term impacts on aesthetics, cultural resources, noise and traffic. However, in each case, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the proposed project will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife,plant or historical resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study. MITIGATION:None Sources: 1-27 Resolution 54-14 Page 38 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 36 of 40 SOURCE LIST: 1. Field Inspection 2. Project Plans 3. Planner's Knowledge of the Area 4. Los Altos Hills Land Use and Zoning Map 5. Los Altos Hills General Plan 6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 7. Assessor's Maps, Office of County Assessor, Santa Clara County 8. State Department of Conservation,Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 2012. 9. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, 2012. 10. State Department Fish and Game CNDDB Map 11. Santa Clara Valley Water District Map 12. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates,March 2009 13. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List, California Environmental Protection Agency 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency,Flood Insurance Rate Map,Los Altos Hills, May 18, 2012. 15. Sanitary Sewer Map,Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department 16. Santa Clara County Municipal Code Chapter H Indian Burial Grounds(Title B Division A-6) 17. CEQA Guidelines,2012 18. Google Earth 19. Impact Report,Proposed Tennis Court Lighting,prepared by James R.Benya,Benya Burnett Consultancy dated June 6,2013 amendment dated February 24, 2014. 20. Visionaire Lighting,Advantage Tennis Lighting guide. 21. Advantage HID-Tennis/Sports,technical data. 22. ACG Engineers,Peer review, dated April 29,2014. 23. Mei Wu Acoustics,Noise Impact report, dated June 6,2013,March 17, 2014 and May 30, 2014. 24. Charles M. Salter,Peer review, dated February 13,2014 and June 2,2014. 25. Hexagon Transportation Consultants,Inc.,Traffic Analysis, dated May 6, 2014. 26. TJKM Transportation Consultants,Peer review, dated April 21, 2014. Resolution 54-14 Page 39 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 37 of 40 EDIT LIST: A. Impact Report,Proposed Tennis Court Lighting,prepared by James R.Benya,Benya Burnett Consultancy dated June 6,2013 amendment dated February 24, 2014. 1. Visionaire Lighting,Advantage Tennis Lighting guide. 2. Advantage HID-Tennis/Sports,technical data. B. ACG Engineers,Peer review, dated April 29,2014. C. Mei Wu Acoustics,Noise Impact report, dated June 6,2013,March 17, 2014 and May 30, 2014. D. Charles M. Salter,Peer review, dated February 13,2014 and June 2,2014. E. Hexagon Transportation Consultants,Inc.,Traffic Analysis, dated May 6,2014. F. TJKM Transportation Consultants,Peer review, dated April 21, 2014. Resolution 54-14 Page 40 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 38 of 40 Mitigation Measures MM - Aesthetics — 1) All light fixtures shall be equipped with light cutoff shields in order to eliminate glare and light spillage beyond the tennis court fencing. MM-Aesthetics—2) Courts not being actively played shall not be lighted. Motion detectors or some similar self-controlling means shall be required. MM-Aesthetics—3)All tennis court lighting shall be timer controlled and shall have overriding time clocks, which shut lights off automatically after one hour if the courts are not in use. There shall also be a master time clock, which prevents lights from being turned on before sunset and after 10:00 p.m. MM - Aesthetics — 4) All tennis court fencing shall maintain dark mesh backdrop covers and dark court surfaces. MM- Cultural Resources—5)The applicant shall ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if human remains are discovered during construction activities. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50❑foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall re❑inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Resolution 54-14 Page 41 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 39 of 40 Mitiiation Monitoring Program Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Pro-iect File # 11-13-CUP Mitigation Measure Responsible' Must Be Done Department Completed B 1 MM-Aesthetics—1)All light fixtures Planning Prior to shall be equipped with light cutoff Department completion shields in order to eliminate glare and of Project light spillage beyond the tennis court_ fencing. 2 MM-Aesthetics—2) Courts not being Planning Prior to actively played shall not be lighted. Department completion Motion detectors or some similar self- of Project controlling means shall be required. 3 MM-Aesthetics—3)All tennis Planning Prior to court lighting shall be timer Department completion controlled and shall have overriding of Project time clocks,which shut lights off automatically after one hour if the courts are not in use. There shall also be a master time clock,which prevents lights from being turned on before sunset and after 10:00 p.m. 4 MM - Aesthetics — 4) All tennis court Planning Prior to fencing shall maintain dark mesh Department completion backdrop covers and dark court of Project surfaces. 5 MM-Cultural Resources—5) Planning Prior to The applicant shall ensure the Department completion construction specifications include of Project a stop work order if human remains are discovered during construction activities.There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site Resolution 54-14 Page 42 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 40 of 40 within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American.If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission,which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American.If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Resolution 54-14 Page 43 EXHIBIT A Impact Report Proposed Tennis Court Lighting Fremont Hills Country Club June 6, 2013 James es R Benya, PE Benya Burnett Consultancy Davis, CA Executive Summary In January 2013, Fremont Hills Country Club ("FHCC") applied to the Town of Los Altos Hills to permit the installation of tennis court lighting. This will require amendments to the Los Altos Hills Municipal c al Code in which high intensity P g Y discharge lighting and the lighting of tennis courts are presently prohibited. If permitted, several of the courts will be equipped with (8) 1000-watt metal halide tennis court lights that are fully shielded for downward light only. This Report was commissioned to determine the extent to which the lighting might have an impact on the environment or on other nearby properties and if so, whether the impact can be mitigated. In general, the total amount of proposed lighting is standard for tennis court lighting. The luminaires are fully shielded and their light will not spill off the grounds of Fremont Hills nor trespass into any natural or undeveloped areas. For this reason, the impact on the local natural environment is less than significant. Because nearby homes are all above the tops of the luminaires, there will be no direct viewing of the light sources from any residence. This eliminates the principal unmitigable impact that lighting usually has. Moreover, ensuring that the courts continue to employ dark backdrops will block most if not all of the view of lighted courts from the west (across the freeway) and the east. Views from the south are blocked by topography and the equestrian center. Trees block court views from homes to the north. Therefore, the proposed lighting will have less than significant view impact. Substantial light pollution in the region already exists and is caused by the Bay Area's street and area lighting. Moreover, Interstate 280 runs near FHCC, and through the neighborhood of homes that might view tennis court lights. The added light pollution affecting sky glow caused by the proposed court lighting will be miniscule in comparison and will therefore have no impact on overall light pollution. Resolution 54-14 Page 44 Proposed Project Information Site FHCC is sited on a somewhat terraced hillside, with the parking lot at about +317', the ground floor of the main clubhouse at +331', and the highest level of the tennis courts at +341'. The main barn is at +351',and above the property, Roble Ladera Road falls from +395' north of the clubhouse to about +370' east of the riding rings. Purissima Road is about +310' just west of the property, nearly at the level of 1-280 to which it runs parallel at this point. The tennis courts are aligned north and south. In effect, the FHCC is in somewhat of a bowl as most nearby residences are at higher elevations looking down on the courts. Due to topography and trees, three homes to the east and north have partially or fully obstructed views of the tennis courts. Four homes to the west, across the freeway and at higher elevation, have relatively unimpeded views, with the freeway in the foreground. No homes to the south have views due to the equestrian center and topography. Ambient Light The area around FHCC and the 1-280 corridor in this area is relatively dark. The primary source of local light pollution is the traffic on 1-280, which can be considerable at peak times. There is little or no street lighting, but local codes permit building mounted lighting. Regional light pollution, which can travel over 125 miles from its source, is considerable to the north, east and south skies due to the major cities of the Bay Area. The Milky Way and low magnitude stars are generally not visible due to the vast amount of regional light pollution. Lighting Technology The proposed project will use fully shielded, 1000-watt metal halide tennis court luminaires mounted at 22 feet above the court on poles. The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) considers luminaires of this type to be "Dark Sky Friendly". The lighting plan is standard for club lighting, and is used at a number of clubs and municipal courts in nearby communities. 2 Resolution 54-14 Page 45 Detailed Assessment of Potential Impact of New Lights Local Natural Environment FHCC is a complex that includes a parking lot, Olympic size swimming pool and pool houses, main clubhouse with dining room, tennis courts, and equestrian facilities. Within the boundary of FHCC, the property appears carefully developed with appealing use of hardscape and landscape. However, it is a fully developed facility with operations into the evening hours throughout the year. Because of landscape management and maintenance, the grounds of FHCC are not natural habitat. The proposed lighting system is downward-facing and aimed at the tennis courts. Spill light is limited and contained onto the grounds of FHCC. Lights will be extinguished when not in use and after FHCC is no longer open. Therefore, there will no significant impact on the local natural environment. Views There are two principal ways in which tennis court light at night might create a view impact. 1. Luminaires that are inadequately shielded, or if fully shielded, are mounted above the viewer's position, allow exposure to direct light. Direct light will create glare that most people find unacceptable. 2. Viewers could see the light reflected by the courts and players by looking downwards at the courts. This impact is minor, as there is no glare. Direct view impact has been ruled out, as the homes and views that might be affected are more than 22 feet above the courts. View of the reflected light from the courts is largely mitigated by the dark surfaces of the courts. Moreover, the courts are partly enclosed by dark backdrops that further contain and absorb light. The approximate distance of the nearest homes that might be able to see the reflected light from tennis courts was determined from a topographic site plan that also permitted establishing the approximate elevation of the homes. Each court was assumed to have a backdrop for the baselines and portions of the sidelines (see Figure 43). In figure 1, below, the geometry of the homes across the freeway relative to the courts is evaluated. The estimated minimum distance is about 500 feet laterally. The diagram shows that viewing across the court, the court proper will be protected from view by the backdrop until the adjacent property is at least 100 feet 3 Resolution 54-14 Page 46 vertically above the tennis court surfaces. Because the courts are roughly 30 feet above the freeway, a home would have to be about 130' feet above it to have only a small glimpse of the court surface. The homes are estimated to be less than 130 feet above the freeway. +435 Court(across) Fence with screen +335 Figure 1: Visibility of Reflected Tennis Court Light from the West A window must be at least 100 feet above the tennis court level to see any part of the tennis court surface. In figure 2, below, the same study reveals than homes above and to the east of the tennis courts will have to be at least +395' to view the court surface. Because the road at this point is about +370', houses in this area would not have any significant view of the court surface. +395 Court(across) Fence with screen +335 Figure 2: Visibility of Reflected Tennis Court Light from the East. A window must be at least 60 feet above the tennis court level to see any part of the court surface. Summary of Visibility of Reflected Tennis Court Light Direction Minimum Height Obstructions Note to See Lights North Not tested Trees along Roble Ladera West +435' None Greater than 500' away East +395' Some trees Road is+370' or less South Not tested Equestrian center 4 Resolution 54-14 Page 47 Because the backdrops prevent viewing the court surface from most angles, and because trees block the view from the homes to the north of the FHCC courts, and due to the equestrian center blocking views to the south, the view impact of the reflected light from the courts will be much less than significant. f 3. Figure 3 -Aerial view of FHCC and courts from the South. Trees (orange ellipse) block views from north. Backdrops mitigate east and west views, and houses would have to be higher to see the courts proper. South view is blocked by equestrian barn and topography (structures at bottom of picture). Resolution 54-14 Page 48 Night Sky Impacts Because of full shielding there is no direct light emitted into the sky and no impact from direct light. Each lighted court will reflect about 50,000 lumens into the night sky, contained within a vertical volume with no low angle light emissions due to the shielding of the luminaires and the backdrops of the courts. This solution will mitigate most of the Rayleigh scattering (the natural scattering of light in the atmosphere) that might affect the night sky viewing. Due to the light pollution of the surrounding Bay Area, the impact of the reflected light will be much less than significant. Summary Fremont Hills Country Club is situated near Highway 280 below most nearby residences, with tennis courts separated from these residences by at least 300-500 feet. Existing topography, landscaping, and dark backdrops adequately mitigate any view impact addition of the proposed downward-shielded tennis court lighting. Shielding of lights and location of lights assures all direct light is contained on the developed area of the Country Club, thus mitigating any impact on the natural environment and preventing upward light pollution. Therefore, all the potential impacts of lighted tennis courts at FHCC are less than significant. QikOFESS/0'Y R e� Ftic m No. 12078 Exp 12-31-13 �FCTRIGP� �Q OF CALIF�� 6 Resolution 54-14 Page 49 BENYA BURNETT LC14BuL1ANCY Fremont Hills Country Club Proposed Tennis Lighting Responses to Comments Raised at Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Study Session December 5,2013 February 24,2014 This memorandum is in response to questions and comments raised at the study session and about my initial expert report.All of the work contained in the report is consistent with the practices and recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America(IES). Additional information about controlling light pollution may be found on the International Dark Sky Association(IDA)Association web site. Question 1: Is this the most energy efficient solution? The energy efficiency of light sources is measured in lumens per watt. The lumens-per-watt varies among the various wattage lamps and driver electronics,but the following table provides representative lumens per watt values for common light sources. Light Source Color Quality Lumens per Watt Range Incandescent Warm toned white light 5-20 Compact fluorescent White light;can be warm 15-60 toned,neutral,or cool colored. Full Sized Fluorescent White light;can be warm 40-110 toned,neutral or cool colored. Light Emitting Diode White light;can be warm 25-100 toned,neutral or cool colored Metal Halide White light;can be warm 50-120 toned,neutral or cool colored High Pressure Sodium Yellow-pink light only 50-140 Metal halide lighting,which is proposed for the tennis courts,is among the most efficient light sources producing white light. It is as efficient as LED lighting,fluorescent lighting,compact fluorescent lighting,or any other white light source. Metal halide lamps used for sports lighting are the most efficient metal halide lamps. At present,there is no more efficient way to light tennis courts or any other outdoor sports. Metal halide lamps exhibit lumen depreciation over life. While they generate 110,0001 lumens initially,they actually put out about 80,000 lumens at mean life,the point in lamp life to which we typically design. But not all of the light exits the luminaire itself. With fully shielded lighting(see below),about'/�of the light is trapped in the luminaire, so we expect 40,000 lumens per luminaire actually going onto the tennis court per luminaire. Each court will have 8 luminaires,for a total of 320,000 total lumens per court under typical,normal conditions.This will produce between 40 and 50 footcandles2 per court,which is the standard lighting level for club level play. 1 Philips M1 0001U probe start lamp 2 A footcandle is a lumen per square foot, A tennis court is about 7,000 sf including alleys and baselines, thus 320,000/7,000—45 footcandles. DESIGN SERVICES, INC. DBA KENYA BURNETT CONSULTANCY FORMERLY KENYA LIGHTING DESIGN 1 612 OLYMPIC DRIVE DAVIS, CA 95616.6663 WWW.BENYABURNETT.COM Resolution 54-14 Page 50 PAGE 2 ❑F 3 Question 2: Does this plan control brightness? Lumens are not brightness. Brightness,measured in candelas per square meter,takes into account where the light is pointed and the viewer located. Automobile headlights are very bright when viewed from the front,but cause no brightness sensation when viewed from the side or behind. This makes it hard to compare metal halide tennis court lighting to auto headlights, because the metal halide lights will shine straight downward so that you never look right at them, unless you lie down on the court and look up. With the exception of people playing tennis,no one will be able to see the metal halide lamps,hence no brightness. Question 3: Reflected Light Tennis courts are painted black,dark blue,dark green and/or dark red in order to increase the contrast with the light colored ball. In addition,dark windscreens are also used for primarily the same reason. With many players being able to hit serves at over 100 mph,the added contrast allows players to see the ball better. The measured reflectance of the paints and backdrops typically used is between 6 and 10%, depending on color. Dark courts and backdrops are already in place at the club. With regard to reflectivity,paint manufacturers make reflectance information available on line or at dealers. For example,a spreadsheet of Light Reflectance Values(LRV's)is available for Resene paints at http://www.resene.com/swatches/download LRV.xis Photometrically speaking,all of the light from the metal halide luminaire is contained within the dark colored cavity consisting of the tennis court and surrounding screens. Using detailed radiosity calculations,I have determined that the worst-case uplight leaving the court will be less than 50,000 lumens when lamps are new.To understand and simplify the math,if 320,000 lumens light the court and the court and windscreens reflect 10%or less,then we might expect 32,000 lumens will be reflected upwards at mean lamp life. Because of the windscreens,the light cannot go outward at low angles. In figures 1 and 2 of my expert report,I showed that almost all neighboring homes would not be able to see the court surface and therefore,not be affected by the reflected light from it. Question 4: Affect on Night Sky Uplight can cause light pollution.Direct uplight low uplight angles from poorly shielded luminaires causes the most damage due to Rayleigh scattering 3. The least damaging light goes straight up. Because of the windscreens,the reflected light from the tennis courts goes straight up,therefore causing the least light pollution. On cloudy nights,some light pollution may be visible on the clouds themselves. However,because light pollution affects very large areas(e.g. Bay Area)the light pollution from the cities around the Bay are the primary cause of light pollution and the contribution of this lighting installation would make not measureable or observable difference. 3 This is because the light travels through the least amount of atmosphere before entering space. Rayleigh Scattering,which causes the sky to be blue and also turns uplight into veiling light,has the greatest effect when light travels nearly horizontal and strikes the most atmospheric particles before exiting into space. Resolution 54-14 Page 51 PAGE 3 of 3 Question 5: Does this Plan do everything possible to mitigate lighting impacts? Tennis court lighting is the only outdoor sports lighting that can be mitigated such that its impact will be less than significant. It is accomplished by: • Using fully shielded light fixtures("luminaires")that shine light only downward onto the court.This prevents light trespass and glare onto adjacent properties at or above the elevation of the tennis courts. • Limiting luminaire mounting height to 7 meters(22 feet)or less. Working in conjunction with screening,this prevents light trespass and glare onto adjacent properties at or above the elevation of the tennis courts. • Using dark finishes on all court surfaces,including dark green,dark red,and black paints, and using dark windscreens minimizes uplight that causes artificial sky glow. A small amount of light emitted will be reflected from the dark windscreens at angles that can be viewed from homes. The brightness of the windscreens will be less than that of a 40-watt incandescent porch light. The light level increase at any adjacent home when the tennis lights are on will be less than.05 footcandles,and at most homes there will be no measureable increase at all. This method of mitigation meets the California Coastal Commission and CEQA regulations to be classified as"less than significant". Summary When correctly designed,including luminaires,windscreens,and playing surface paint,tennis courts are for all practical purposes the only sports lighting systems that can meet Coastal Commission and CEQA standards to be declared an environment impact that is less than significant. Almost all other sports have significant impacts,as they require taller poles due to the size of the playing field or other situations demanding more lighting. Persons at the club,walking among the courts or viewing the courts from the clubhouse will feel that the area is well lighted. The key to success in lighting a tennis facility in an environmentally sensitive area is keeping most of the light on the grounds of the club. This mitigation design will accomplish exactly that. James R Benya,PE,FIES,FIALD �OPROFESS/0� � �S R-BFti Fti m m No. 12078 Exp 12-31-15 cP �E TRIGP\. \Q OF CALIFO�� Resolution 54-14 Page 52 VISIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance In A Whole New Light 4:. anta y� j j, T :4 t -- The Most Energy Efficient High-Performance Tennis Light in the Industry Tennis courts never seemed bright enough at night—with good reason, tennis court lighting technology has not changed significantly in over 20 years... until now! Visionaire proudly introduces the Advantage, a UL high performance fixture designed specifically for AZTEC tennis with up to triple the light compared to other (�I court fixtures. It is now possible to have smoothly lit 150 footcandle averages and 80% lumen retention over time with only eight 1000 watt fixtures! Utilizing the unique VISIONTm reflector system, the Advantage is the ideal Retrofit fixture for tennis clubs, _ public parks, universities, schools, and residential courts. The VISION system offers more light and less NEIGHBORHOOD-FRIENDLY FULL CUTOFF REFLECTOR energy - and requires fewer poles, saving court builders on new construction costs: 1000 watt Advantage fixtures offer triple the light with the same energy as most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 750 watt Advantage fixtures offer 75% more light and 25x/0 less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 450 watt Advantage fixtures offer improved light and 55% less energy than most compgjjjp, 's,_j,000 watt fixtures Page 54 The Highest • In •ustry READINGS AT 3'ABOVE GRADE N In z The • .•' 000 watt 1 9 147 138 65 LU LU offerssystem before J 119 153 154 38 O O light •' 155O N r 1 0 164 158 75 ootcandles • • H with i fixtures and poles, or C7 1 0 165 163 64 w footcandles with i • _ •• • ,cost. 1 0 165 163 64 F Z 110 164 158 75 2 For • energysavings, N 119 153 154 38 the Advantage's offerssystem • • 1E9 147 138 1611 9 O O footcandle average with moreuA J light • /00 watt Avg Nu Nin AvWWn IhxIMRn d 155.13 175 119 1.30 1.47 °a systems, with 25% less • 2 J Co READINGS AT 3'ABOVE GRADE READINGS AT 3'ABOVE GRADE 122 109 100 128 w 1 101 94.4 113 Z 2 w J ill 94.0 94.2 109 C 812 105 105 � O O L O 148 119 110 44 1 6 112 108 20 U Z 1 9 130 126 54 W 1 113 111 12 (� = W 1 9 130 126 54 P 10 113 111 12 Z Z F D 19 Z 148 119 110 44 116 112 108 20 0 N � ill 94.0 94.2 09 8 .2 105 105 M. N a 1Z2 109 100 28 C 1 101 94.4 113 r n LLJ w J J Avg Nu On Avg Win Mu1Nin d Avg M. bin AvglWn Na�JNin a 122.95 159 94.0 1.31 1.69 106.11 120 81.2 1.31 2 C7 C7 J J y_ �Y a' LL U J J LL .'tom rY i s r r. pp� Pil LL The VISION Reflector System inside the Advantage fixture provides the most light in the industry—up to triple the light of the competition over time. Maximizing this technology also allows the economical option of less wattage for significant energy savings, or fewer fixtures and poles for installation and maintenance savings, while still meeting USTA lighting criteria. The Advantage fixture features a flat lens full-cutoff design approved by the International Dark Sky Association for neighborhood friendly lighting, and comes with a full compliment of arms, poles, and optional shields. Please consult our factory for computer generated lighting plans,free layout service, and consultation. Ili! TESTIMONIAL "At Riviera we try to provide the best equipment,technology, and coaching to our membership.We recently retrofitted four of our courts with Visionaire's new ,^�C//-- y/ / Advantage Tennis Court Fixture. Our light C77levels more than tripled, increasing from 30 to 45 foot candles to 180 foot candles at the net, 177 at the service line, and 129 l foot candles behind the base line after . . the new fixtures were installed. Our members and instructors are ecstatic with our lighting upgrade. I know co that the level of play and fun at our club N will increase with these new fixtures" V, z z w Kim Perino, Director of Tennis Riviera Tennis Club, Pacific Palisades,CA - - - - - - -- - - C I I I I B ' I I I 'appros lbs based on beau tc 5g...b.n w/pack.g.9 ADV-2 2.8 30" 20.5" 11" 1000w 57 The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design inspired The Advantage fixture's unique, patent-pending Tennis Court reflector is by the sleek styling of a European sports car. The new patent-pending designed specifically for today's levels of play and is the ideal fixture for Vision T11 Tennis Court Reflector System is unlike any other, providing tennis clubs,public parks,universities,schools,and residential courts.With more light per watt than ever before.The flat lens,vertical lamp,IES full the option of higher light levels or lower energy costs this industry-leading cutoff luminaire is Dark Sky certified to restrict light trespass, glare and fixture offers substantial advantages over traditional lighting systems. light pollution for neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. The Advantage is available with the new Pulse Start Metal Halide lamp in The low profile, aerodynamic-shaped housing is available with several 1000 or 875 watts;as well as the latest energy saving 750,450,and 400 waft different,unique,mounting arms for tennis applications.A durable polyester lamps.Utilizing the latest in techology Pulse Start Metal Halide lamps provide powder coat finish is a variety of colors will compliment any sports facility. more light per watt over a longer period of time,better color consistency.and Computerized precision machinery,quality materials,and silicone gasket- smooth,even light for any court facility. ing ensure manufacturing to the highest industry standards. Model No. Optics Wattage Source Voltage Mounting Finish Options ADV • • • • ❑ADV-2 ❑ Tennis ❑ 400(400) MH ❑ 450450 , PS 0 480 ❑ Slip Fit Arm E3 Bronze ❑ Back Shield Flat Glass � (T4T) 450(450) (M) (P) (5) (SFA) (BZ) (BS) j ❑ 750 (750) ❑ ❑ Consult factory for ❑Black ❑ 875(875) ❑ M.Tap bolt-on and davit arms (BK) 4-Sided Shield II 4SS)131000(1000) MH-Metal Halide (6) o White ( I 'Reduced Envelope PS-Pulse Start Metal Halide (WH) Lamp on 1000w ❑Green (GN) II d �4FT� 1-4FT- 4FT - I t 12" EPA: 1.5 j EPA:2.6 TNS 100-S 1 TNS 100-D2 • 0 mom TNS100 Tennis Court mounting arm is constructed of 1'/2"x 3" rect- Model No. Configuration Pole or Tenon Size Finish angular steel tubing.This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon(or pole)sizes: 3%"0, 4"0, &4%"0.TNS100 is available in the 0 TNS100 0 Single (S1) 0 3-Yz"dia.(3.5) o Bronze (BZ) following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1800,Triple 0 Double (132) 0 4"dia. (4) o Black (BK)o Triple 900 (T9) 0 4'/2"dia.(4.5) 0 White (WH) 900,Triple 1200,and Quad. 0 Triple 120°(T7) 0 Green (GN) 0 Quad (QD) o Custom(CC) 1 4FT 4FT 4FT pwa "T 12" :�... •""""' EPA: 1.5 EPA: 2.2 TNS 101-S 1 TNS101-D2 Model No. Configuration Pole or Tenon Size Finish TNS101 Architectural Tennis Court mounting arm is constructed of 23/8'curved steel tubing.This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon(or pole)sizes: 3"0, 3Y2"0,4"0, &41/2"0. TNS101 0 TNS101 0 Single (S1) 0 3"dia. (3) a Bronze (BZ) 3 dia.(3.5) o Black (BK) is available in the following pole mounting configurations: Single, 0 Double (D2) 03 0 Triple 90° (T9) 0 4dia. (4) 0 White (WH) Double 180°,Triple 90°, Triple 120°, and Quad. 0 Triple 1200(T1) 0 4-Y�'dia.(4.5) 0 Green (GN) 0 Quad (CID) 0 Custom(CC) Illym 4FT ►� �4FT 4FT--►I I _ ,$„ EPA:2.2 EPA: 3.8 - TNS 102-S 1 — -- TNS 102-D2 TNS 102 Tennis Court Theme mounting arm is constructed of 1'/2"x 3" Model No. Configuration Pole or Tenon Size Finish rectangular steel tubing and features a unique mesh tennis court net and ball design.This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon 0 TNS102 0 Single (S1) 0 3-'/2"dia.(3.5) 0 Bronze (BZ) (or pole)sizes: 3'/"0, 4"0, &4'/2"0.TNS 102 is available in the fol- 0 Double (D2) 0 4"dia. (4) 0 Black (BK) lowing pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 180°,Triple 90°, 0 Triple 900 (T9) 0 4-'/2"dia.(4.5) 0 White (WH) Triple 1200, and Quad. 0 Triple 120°(T1) 13Green (GN) 0 Quad (QD) 0 Custom(CC) . �. •r r Resolution 54-1 • . E 0 U m c L c 0 co 00 N 0 L N � NO s O � � j OQ � oN ZUco U � � z 0c aN0 c_ (� t� N 0 ?� LOCO � � W -�Q F- (D � p C pNLO CO 0 ppo F O E 't -C 'r- N 0 (D c x � > • _ Project Name Type • • • Catalog Number C cv! Fes— A B Watts �.:.'. c �L us • LISTEDADV-2 23" 32" 15" 1000 W 67 The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design Advantage is available in one size and one distribution pattern, inspired by the sleek styling of a European sports car.Vision TM is including a special forward throw T4T reflector for tennis and a patented, revolutionary new reflector system unlike any other. other sport applications. Vision TM Reflector System allows the The flat lens, vertical lamp, IES full cutoff luminaire is Dark-Sky use of fewer fixtures and poles with wider spacings, providing certified to restrict light trespass, glare and light pollution for substantial equipment, installation and energy cost savings. neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. Advantage offers a selection of Pulse Start and Metal Halide The low-profile, aerodynamic-shaped housing is complimented lamps from 400 through 1000 watts. with a uniquely styled mounting arm.A durable polyester powder coat finish is standard in a selection of architectural colors to enhance any application. Computerized precision machinery and quality materials ensure manufacturing to the highest industry standards. Model Optics Wattage Source Voltage Mounting Finish Options ADV-2 Tennis 400 PS 120 Slip Fit Arm Tennis Green 4-Sided Light Shield Flat Glass (T41) (400) (1) (SFA) (GN) (4SS) 450 PS 208 Davit Arm Black Back Shield Reduced envelope (2) (DA) (BK) (BS) (450) 240 Adjustable Knuckle Bird-B-Gone 750 PS (3) Mount (BBG) (750) (KM) 875 PS 277 (4) (875) 480 1000 MH, PS (5) (1000) (M), (P) M-Tap 'Multi Tip ballast wired at 277 v unless specified (6) 347 (8) 'Davit arm must be ordered MH-Metal Halide with a Davit bracket.See Ps Pulse start Metal Halide Mounting Arms section. SIZ ® 19645 Rancho Way•Rancho Dominguez.CA•90220 ' Tel (310)512-6480•fax(310)512-6486 Resolution 54-14 vrvw.visio� Aling.com 6 06.08.11 Housing Mounting •All housings are manufactured using technologically advanced • Slip fit arm mount (SFA), davit arm (DA) or knuckle mount computer numerical control(CNC)machinery. Precision sheared (KM) available. and formed, corrosion-resistant aluminum. • Please see Mounting Arms section for a choice of tennis davit •The computerized CNC machinery enables all Advantage housings arm options, brackets and accessories. to be constructed quickly,efficiently and in adherence with exacting ISO 9002 standards.All external hardware is stainless steel. Electrical Assembly •All ballasts are premium-grade HPF regulating autotransformers. Lens and Door Assembly Ballast is capable of providing consistent lamp starting down to • Removable door assembly is CNC precision, sheared and -20°F.Available in: formed from corrosion-resistant aluminum,with captive stainless • Metal Halide(MH) steel fasteners. • Pulse Start Metal Halide(PS) •The lens is a tempered,clear safety glass,secured by galvanized lens retainers, and sealed with silicone gasketing to provide • Socket is glazed porcelain medium or mogul base with nickel- complete weather and insect protection. plated contacts, rated at 4 kV(5 kV for 1000 watt)and 600 V. Vision TM Optical System Options •Reflector is precision CNC cut and bent,multifaceted,segmented, .4-Sided light shield highly efficient,95%reflective aluminum.Available in a specialized . Back shield T4T tennis reflector. • Bird-B-Gone •Tool-less reflector entry. Quali-Guard`s Finish Please consult factory for custom options. • The finish is a Quali-Guard" textured, chemically pretreated Listings through a multiple stage washer, electrostatically applied, ®•• thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum of 3-5 •Advantage is «<. listed, suitable for wet locations. millimeter thickness. Finish is oven-baked at 400 °F to promote ' Dark-Sky Friendly",full cutoff certified by the International maximum adherence and finish hardness.All finishes are available Dark-Sky Association. in standard and custom colors. •W24 compliant. •Finish is guaranteed for two(2)years. • Powder Coated Tough T11 rK°R • Vision T'Reflector System (U.S. Patent No. 7,213,948). Slip-FitMounting 4 �I 4 -- EPA 2<, FPA 1 2 1 �l TNS100-S1 TNS100-D2 TNS103 Davit Arm `Tennis mounting arms slip-fit over tenons or poles,available in single.double 180°,D90,D70,and quad. "Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket.See Mounting Arms section. CourtAdjustable Knuckle Mount Tennis SINGLE COURT 60X120 �'/i `• X19.4 40.7 158,J 71.2*67.3 70.6 69.4 •67.8 7�# 59.3 43.6 21.b 31.5 70. P 4 72.0 34.6 37.9 71.E •115 •11 X131 X124 •124 •134 •111 •117 75.1 41.3 Slip fits over 2'/8'0.D." 37.9 71. X115 X11 *131 .12 •124 •134 .111 .11 75.2 41.3 EPA •ta 31.4 69. 2 71.8 34.5 Fixture with Arm �-. ! �# R. � 1 X19.4 40.5 58.3 ` �0 67.1 70.4 69.2 67.6\'i.2 59.1 43.4 21. ADV-2 1.9 F--24R + 24Ft -I W19645 Rancho Way•Rancho Dominguez.CA•90220 11 111"I1Tel (310)512-6480•Fax (310)512-6486 JITTYMPU Resolution 54-14 www.Iisioiv ng.com 06.08.11 37 EXHI April 29, 2014 Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills, California Onc. CONSULTING Attention: Cynthia Richardson DESIGN Planning Consultant FIELD ENGINEERING Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club SERVICES Proposed Tennis Court Lighting Impact Report— Peer review Dear Cynthia: We have reviewed the Impact Report Proposed Tennis Court Lighting for Fremont Hills Country Club prepared by Benya Burnett Consultancy dated June 6, 2013. Below are the numerated review comments: 1. The potential impact of the new tennis court lighting to the neighboring residential houses around the proposed location and surrounding environment were discussed in full specifics on the report we agree with the assessment of the impact on the assumption that the recommended light fixture is used. 2. Lamp technology: The lamp selected for the proposed light fixture is metal Halide lamp. This lamp has several advantages over other lamps for this application. a. Efficiency: Good b. Annual operating cost: Low c. Degree of light control: Good d. Color Acceptability: Very good e. Maintained Lumen output: Good We agree with the lamp selection based on the above lamp characteristic for the proposed application. 7347 Mission Street 3. Light fixture: The proposed light fixture is designed and suitable for Daly City,CA 94014 tennis court lighting. The fixture has essential features such as suitability 650.994.4906(TEL) for wet location and sharp cutoff shielding with provision for additional 650.994.4964(FAX) shielding that comply with Dark Sky Friendly requirement by IDA. The Dark Skyrequirements are full covered on the report under the 447 Sutter Street q Y p suite 516 "Night Sky Impacts" paragraph and have been considered for the San Francisco,CA 94108 selection of the light fixture. The reflected light to the sky of the playing 415.660.5940(TEL) area surface has no impact or insignificant due to the reflective surface of the material typically used in the tennis court. acgeng.com Resolution 54-14 Page 63 Page 2 Regarding: Fremont Hills Country Club-Tennis Court Lighting- Peer Review Los Altos Hills, CA p We agree with lighting fixture selection and we have found it suitable for the application. 4. Typical lighting layout and levels: CONSULTING a. IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America) Lighting DESIGN Handbook published outdoor Tennis court recommended minimum FIELD foot-candle levels. Tournament: 75 foot-candles, Club: 50 foot- ENGINEERING candles, Recreational: 30 foot-candles. SERVICES b. Fixture Pole Height: Recommended formula to determine minimum pole height is H= (D+1/3W) (Tan 30 degrees). H-Pole height, D- Distance from the edge of the playing area to the pole, W- Width of the playing area. The results is approximately 14 feet. However, it is recommended by IES that the minimum pole height for ground sport area should not be less than 20 feet. The report recommended lighting layouts were categorized into two tennis court usage: Recreational (6 light fixture layout) and Tournament (8 light fixture layout). The average foot-candles of both lighting layouts in comparison with the IESNA recommendation indicates adequate light levels for tennis court lighting. Therefore, the layout in the report is acceptable. We concluded that the information on the report meets the requirement for tennis court lighting with consideration of residential viewing and environmental impact. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Very Truly Yours, Antonio C. Jakosalem, P.E 7347 Mission Street ACG Engineers, Inc. Daly City,CA 94014 Managing Partner 650.994.4906(TEL) 650.994.4964(FAX) 447 Sutter Street, #516 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.660.5940(TEL) www.acgeng.com Resolution 54-14 Page 64 EXHIBIT C Mao Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club sclomnie@fremonthills.com From: Jeff Invin, Mei Wu Acoustics jeffrey.irwin@mei-wu.com Mei Wu,Mei Wu Acoustics meiwu@mei-wu.com Date: June 6, 2013 Subject: Los Altos Hills Country Club Tennis Court Noise Impact Study (Final Report) MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics is pleased to submit this report regarding our noise impact study for the Fremont Hills Country Club tennis court lighting project. We have taken sound measurements, with and without court activity, and compared our results to the requirements of Section 5-2.02 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Noise Ordinance. We have also assessed the project's noise impact to the surrounding residential areas in light of CEQA determinations. This report details our measurement process, results, and conclusions regarding the noise impact of the tennis courts' extended hours. 1. Background The club is surrounded mostly by residential properties, but is also located very close to Interstate 280. Section 5-2.02 of the Town of Los Altos- Hills Noise Ordinance states that noise from "persons" may not exceed 50d BA during day hours (8am— l Opm weekdays, 9am -- lOpm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, IOpm — 9am weekends). A-V; IL . � . Figure I: hlap of ciiu(I.H.C.C.)anc surruunZing areas The country club wishes to install lighting to allow later play on 5 of their 10 tennis courts (courts 94 through 0, see Figure 2). The Town of Los Altos Hills believes that the additional activity on the tennis courts may cause the club to break town noise ordinances. However, heavy street and air traffic already cause noise levels much higher than those caused by tennis courts, and they are much more likely to cause an annoyance to residents. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 1 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 65 Due to the comparatively small amount of noise produced by the tennis courts, the club staff believes the noise impact of the lighting project to be extremely small. O. Figure 2. Court layout,highlighted courts are to be lighted At 4:00pm on Thufsdax. February 21. 2012• Town of P Los Altos H' February � Ills staff took . sound measurements along the club's northeastern property line at Roble Ladera Road. At this time, they measured a "prevailing" noise level of 55dBA, with maximum levels teaching 59dBA, Approximately half of the courts were in use at the time. No information on the specific methods used in these measurements was provided P p by the town. It is not known what other noise sources were present at the time, nor is it known what the specific noise contributions of the plavers were compared to other sources. 2- Measurement Process Sound rrteers were set up at 3 stations (Figure 3); along the property lines nearest the tennis courts; on the north, east, and south sides of the courts. Station 1 was located on the property line between the club and a private residence to the south (at approximately 27160 Purissima Road), Station 2 was located on the property line between the club and a private residence to the east (at approximately 12580 Roble Ladera Road), and Station 3 was located on the property line between the club and a private residence to the north (at approximately 12650 Roble Ladera Road). Figure 4 shows the locations of the measurement stations as viewed from nearby roads. J F lilt, . Figure 3: Measurement stations along club property lines. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 2 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 66 - �• 1 .. w - .'"''.fit` y i.F'!1• . dG; ,... 'x +�.: Figure 4: Station 1 at 2116t`Purissima(left),Station 2 at 12330 Roble Lad era(muic O,Station 3 at 12650 Roble Ladera(right). Measurement sets were taken using Norsonic Nor118 (type-1) and Cesva SC160 (type-2) sound level meters, both calibrated on-site with a Norsonic Nor1251 calibrator prior to each measurement. Each measurement set lasted for 30-minutes, with each set including the 30- :rrlinute-averaged third-octave band levels, and the equivalent A-weighted sound levels measuy;:d over time. Time data was recorded once per minute, with each data point representing sound levels integrated over one-minute periods. Baseline measurements (with no tennis court activity) were taken on the afternoon of Monday, April 29, 2013; between 2:15pm and 2:45pm (Station 1), between 3:30pm and 4:00 pm(Station 2), and between 4:15pin and 4:45pm (Station 3). Measurements with the tennis courts in use were taken on Saturday, May 4, 2013; between 8:50arn and 9:20am (Station 1), between 9:50am and 10:20am (Station 2), and between 10:40arn and 11:1Oarn (Station 3). 3. Measurement Results A. Baseline Measurements Station 1 baseline measurement sets were taken on Monday, April 29, 2013; between 2:15pm and 2:45pm (Station 1), between 3:30pm and 4:00 pm (Station 2), and between 4:15pm and 4:45pm (Station. 3). None of the tennis courts were in use during the first two sets, and one court (+5) was in use bx 2 people during a small portion of the last set. As the measurements were conducted on a weekday afternoon, interstate traffic on I-280 was moderately heavy, though not congested. i. Station 1 Station 1 baseline measurements were dominated primarily by traffic noise from 1- 280, which remained at a relatively constant volume over the 30-minute measurement. Other constant sound sources were animal noises originating from the nearby stables, chicken coops, and forested area. The major short-term noises during this time were caused by automobile traffic on Purissima Road and Minorca Court, and by air traffic above. Noises made by stable workers also figured into these measurements; since noises such as voices, walking, opening and closing of gates, and various tool noises (hammers, etc.) were often audible above the more constant background noise. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 67 The 30-minute-averaged frequency content measured at Station I is shown in Figure 5. Noise levels are displayed over third-octave bands for the range of frequencies audible to the average human listener (approximately 20Hz — 20 kHz). The unweighted equivalent levels (Leq) for the measurement remain near or below 50dB, though the maximum levels at some frequencies reach nearly MO. The highest instantaneous measurements were taken during the passing of road and air traffic, and these are the causes of the maxinutm levels shown. 80 Po M 60 so --"— J a. \ s 40 30 20 -Lmin o -Lmax '10 o -Leq 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure 5: Station I baseline noise levels over audible frequency range,measured in third-octaNe bands. Equivalent A-weighted noise levels are shown over the 30-minute measurement time in Figure 6. Data was recorded at 60-second intervals, and each data point represents sound measurements integrated over a full 60-second period. These levels remain mostly below 50dBA,and result in a 30-minute average of 46.2dBA. 55 s 5° C< � J a 45 a` 4G ---Leq 0 Lave N 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Figure 6. Station I baseline A-%%eighted noise levels over time The percentile measurements in Figure 7 illustrate the lengths of time during which various noise levels are exceeded. For instance, the Ll curve represents the level exceeded during 1% of each measurement period (the approximate maximum), the L5o curve the level exceeded during 50% of each measurement time (the median value), and the 1,99 curve the level exceeded during 99% of each measurement time (the approximate minimum). The only percentile curves that surpass 50dBA are the Ll, L5, and Llo curves, indicating that the 50dBA limit was exceeded during 1% to 10% of certain 60-second periods, and that it was not exceeded at all during many Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 4 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 68 periods. Overall, the 50dBA limit was exceeded for less than 10% of the total measurement time, and the median sound level rarely exceeds 45dBA. 65 i60 41 55 r a 50 ij\ N 4540 a v c 0 35 Ll L5 -- -- L10 L50 L90 -— L95 — — L99 --- Leq 30 ---- -r --r---r —� 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Figure T Station I baseline A-weighted percentile measurements over time. 11. Slafion 2 Station 2 baseline measurements were dominated by the I-280 traffic, Roble Ladera Road traffic, and air traffic. Traffic from 1-280 was constant, and was very clearly audible during the entire 30-minutes measurement time. The swimming pool was in use at the time, and occasional splashing and voices could be heard. Noises from horses and stable workers were also audible. Average unweighted sound levels exceeded the 50dB limit at several lower frequencies(Figure 8),with maximum levels reaching as high as 88dB due to passing street traffic. Levels were relatively constant in the lower frequency ranges, dropping off at frequencies above approximately 2kHz. 100 90 ^ 80 70 60 50 \/�------ 40 30 Lmin 20 Lmax N 30 —Leq 0 --r_—16 Hz 63 Hz 250Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.'0 kHz frequency Figure 8: Station 2 baseline noise levels over audible frequency range. A-weighted noise levels (Figure 9) were above 50dBA during nearly the entire 30- minute measurement time, and a 30-minute-average level of 55.2dBA was measured. Constant traffic on 1-280 caused this high level of background noise over the entire measurement. Overall, the A-weighted noise levels exceeded 50dBA for 95% of the 30-minute measurement time (Figure 10). However, very little of this noise Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 5 Tel: (650) 592-1675/ Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 69 originated from the country club, with the dominant noise sources being Roble Ladera Road traffic and freeway noise from I-280. 65 m 60 v d d 55 5 ICU c` 50 -__- c —Leq 'o Lave 45 -— - ,--`-- — -- r---,--� 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Figure 9: Station 2 baseline A-weighted noise levels over time. 80 X75 m 70 v w 65 60 55 V 0 r 45 Ll L5 -- - L10 L50 N L90 -- - L95 - L99 -Leq 40 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Figure 10: Station 2 baseline A-weighted percentile noise levels over time W. Stwion 3 Station 3 measurements showed unweighted sound levels (Figure 1 1) exceeding 50dB at low frequencies (100Hz and below), and existing at or below the 50dB mark in higher ranges. As before, noise measurements were dominated by I-280 traffic, Roble Ladera Road traffic, and air traffic; and these account for the maximum noise levels reaching almost 80dB at some frequencies. 90 80 0 70 d 60 J 50 40 d 30 a 20 —Lmin o 10 Lmax 0 —Leq 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 6 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 70 Figure 11: Station 3 baseline noise levels over audible frequency range. Equivalent A-weighted levels (Figure 12) exceeded 50dBA during nearly the entire 30-minute measurement time, with a 30-minute-averaged level of 52.2dBA. Again, this was dile to constant I-280 traffic, the passing of cars along Roble Ladera Road, and the passing of planes overhead. Percentile levels (Figure 13) show that the 50dBA limit was exceeded during more than 50%of the total measurement duration. 60 c r a 55 J z Su Leq e Lave 0 45 --r—r— --r —i 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 12: Station 3 baseline A-weighted noise levels over time. 70 s 65 d' m 60 a / 55 m 50 CL c 45 Ll L5 -----L10 L50 o L90 ----- L95 ---L99 Leq 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 13 Station 3 baseline A-\%cighted percentile noise levels over time. B. rennl5 Measurements Sound level measurements were taken on Saturday, May 4, 2013, while the tennis courts were in moderate to heavy use. These measurements were taken between 8:50am and 9:20am (Station 1), between 9:50am and 10:20am (Station 2), and between 10:40am and 1 I:1 Oam (Station 3). Between 6 and 8 of the courts were in use at any given time during all 3 measurement sets, although the specific courts in use sometimes changed during measurement. Courts were used by 2 people at a time, with the exception of one court that was being used by 4 people during the second and third measurement sets, meaning that there were between 12 and 18 people playing at any given time during measurement. There was moderately heavy interstate traffic on 1-280, with traffic conditions reasonably similar to those during the baseline measurements taken on April 29. Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 7 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 71 i. Station 1 Station 1 measurements were dominated by 1-280 traffic noise, local traffic on Purissima Road and Minorca Court, and air traffic overhead. Animal noises from the stables, chicken coops, and nearby wooded area were consistently audible, as were noises from stable workers, pedestrians, and club members in the equestrian area. Tennis court noise was completely inaudible at this station over the other ambient noise. Unweighted frequency-band measurements (Figure 14) showed average levels above 50dB at frequencies below 100Hz, with remaining levels at or below 50dB. Maximum levels reached nearly 80dB, but these high measurements were due to the passing street traffic. 90 k80 m/o -60 v ?;50 40 30 20 7Lmin 10 max 0 ---�—'--- — r---- �- 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Fwure 14: Station I noise levels vvith tennis courts:over audible frequency ranee A-weighted sound measurements over time (Figure 15) resulted in levels that were mostly below 50dBA, with an average level of 48.7dBA. The 50dBA mark was exceeded much more frequently during this particular 30-minute timeframe than during that of the corresponding baseline measurement, and the average level was higher than the 46.2dBA average baseline measurement. Percentile measurements (Figure 16) also showed significantly higher peaks over time. However, the higher levels measured were due more to increased human and animal activity inthe equestrian area than anything else. Absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above other ambient noise during this measurement. 60 d a 55 L a 50 45 v 40 --Leq 'o Lave 35 ---- 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Fisiure 15: Station I A-vveighted noise levels vvith tennis courts,over time. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 8 Tel: (650) 592-1675/ Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 72 70 it C< 60 v a' a 50 40 LI L5 - - -L10 L50 30 -•—-- L90 L95 L99 Leq 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 16: Station I A-%wiehted percentile noise levels with tennis courts,over time. ii Station ' Station 2 measurements were dominated by constant 1-280 traffic, occasional Roble Lad--ra Road traffic, and occasional air traffic. Unlike at Station 1, tennis court noise was audible at this location. Most of the perceivable court noise was from rackets striking balls, though players' voices could be heard as well. There was also occasional noise from pedestrians on Roble Ladera Road, as well as from the country club pool and equestrian area. Unweighted noise levels (Figure 17) were near or below 50dB at all audible frequencies. Peak levels as high as 73dB were recorded at some frequencies, but these peaks were due to the nearby Roble Ladera Road traffic rather than the noise from the courts. so s7o c6'60 50 — ✓�_�` a — 40 v 30 a 20 Lmin 10 —Lmax °n —Leq 0 --- --—r—-----r--— ---r 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure IT Station 2 noise levels wth tennis carts,over audible frequency ranse. Equivalent A-weighted noise levels (Figure 18) at Station 2 fluctuated around the 50dBA limit, with a 30-minute-average level of 50.1dBA. Percentile measurements (Figure 19) showed some very high peak levels measured during the 30-minute timeframe, but these were only due to cars passing nearby. Overall, 50dBA was exceeded during just over 10%of the measurement duration. Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 9 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 73 60 i55 a SO V 45 --leq Lave v°, 40 —x 9:50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20 time Figure 1$ Station 2 A-v%eighted noise levels%ith tennis courts,over time ^so 70 � 1 60 d J 7 S0 Vv- 7, 1-4 71 c 40 Ll L5 - -- L10 L50 o L90 —— L95 ---L99 Leq 30 --r--r---.----,---- 9-50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20 time Figure 19: Station 2 A-weighted percentile noise levels x ith tennis courts,over time. Station 3 Station 3 noise. levels were again, dominated by constant 1-280 traffic, periodic Roble L.adera Road traffic, and periodic air traffic. The tennis courts were audible in the form of racket noise and occasional player voices. Pedestrian traffic and people in the pool contributed to the noise at this location as well. Noise from the equestrian area was somewhat less noticeable at this location. Unweighted frequency measurements (Figure 20) showed average levels near or below 50dB in audible frequency bands, with peaks of up to 70dBA caused by the close-passing traffic on Roble Ladera Road. so 70 0 60 v — 50 40 „ 30 a` 20 7—Lmin 53 10 max o —leq �+ 0 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure 20 Station 2 noise levels with tennis courts,over audible frequency range. Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 10 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/wvvw.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 74 Like at the previous station, equivalent A-weighted measurements (Figure 21) here fluctuated near the 50dBA limit, with a 30-minute-averaged level of 50.8dBA. Percentile measurements (Figure 22) showed that the limit was broken more frequently during this particular measurement set, but that noise levels were still within code for over 50%of the time. 60 C< 55 v 50 � a N a v 45 Leq c 0 0 Lave 40 --rr------r 10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time Figure 21: Station 2 A-weighted noise levels with tennis courts,over time. 70 t m 60 / d' 50 5 Y 40 L Ll L5 — — L10 l50 L90 -- L95 ——-- L99 —— Leq 30 ---------.— ---x- 10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time Figure 22. Sta!ion 2 A-weighted percentile noise levels with tennis courts,over time. 4. Conclusions Section 5-2.02 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Noise Ordinance states that noise from `-persons. must not exceed 50dBA during day hours (8am — I Opm weekdays, 9am — 10pm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, IOpm — 9am weekends). Fremont Hills Country Club will be shutting off the court lights at lOpm each day, and will not be lighting courts in the early mornings, so any noise impact the lighting project may have will occur only in the daytime hours. Therefore, only daytime noise levels have been examined, since nighttime levels will not be changed in any way by the lighting project. The following table and chart provide a summary and comparison of the noise activities observed at the 3 measurement stations during each 30-minute measurement. A-weighted average, peak, and percentile levels both with and without tennis court activity are compared for each station. Our conclusions on the current noise conditions and the environmental impact of the tennis courts are then listed in light of the presented data. Mei Wu Acoustics MWA Project 13026 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190,Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 11 Tel: (650) 592-1675/ Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 75 No Tennis Court Activity: Full Tennis Court Activity: Monday Afternoon Saturday Morning April 29,2013 May 4,2013 Station 1: Time: 2:15pm-2:45pm Time: 8:50am-9:20am Shared Property Line to South Tennis Players: 0 Tennis Players: 12-16 (Approx.27160 Purissima Rd.) Average Level: 46.2 dBA Average level: 48.7 dBA Peak Level: 61.5 dBA Peak Level: 65.5 dBA Station 2: Time: 3:30pm-4:00pm Time: 9:50am-10:20am Shared Property Line to East Tennis Players: 0 Tennis Players: 14-16 (Approx.12530 Roble Ladera Rd.) Average Level: 55.2 dBA Average Level: 50.1 dBA Peak Level: 79.1 dBA Peak Level: 73.5 dBA Station 3: Time: 4:15pm-4:45pm Time: 10:40am-11:10am Shared Property Line to North Tennis Players: 0-2 Tennis Players: 14-18 (Approx. 12650 Roble Ladera Rd.) Average Level: 52.2 dBA Average Level: 50.8 dBA I Peak Level: 65.5 dBA Peak Level: 65.2 dBA Table 1: Summary ol'30-minute-averaged measurements. 00 -- £0 0 70 —0—Lmax —0 Ll —0 —L5 °i Cf� LIO / --�—L50 a` c0 L95 L99 40 —= 30 Station 1, Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3, No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full Ftgure 23 Summar of 30-ininute-averaged measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions In regards to the town's daytime noise limit from "persons" of 50dBA, the average noise level at two of the three measurement locations is above 50dBA whether or not the tennis courts are in use. Stations 2 and 3 (like the majority of the Roble Ladera Road property line) have a clear line of sight to the freeway, are elevated above it, and are located less than 1,000 feet from it. Under standard traffic conditions, this results in average property-line noise levels above 50dBA due to freeway noise alone. Station 1, despite being closer to I-280, receives somewhat lower levels of noise from it, since the station is at a lower elevation than the freeway. However, traffic still produces average levels very near 50dBA during typical freeway traffic. No measurements were made during periods MWA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 12 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 76 of heavy traffic, but it can safely be concluded that these periods would produce even higher average noise levels at any point along the club's property line. Tennis court noise can be audible over such background noise levels, but it will not raise average levels or increase annoyance by any significant amount. With all property lines running along local streets, the cars passing by a particular property line will always create the loudest noise levels, as evidenced by the maximum measurements in this study reaching up to 80dBA. Any human-generated noise from the club is negligible compared to such high levels, and it will therefore not increase perceived annoyance beyond any already caused by the traffic. B. Noise Impact of Lighting Project i. Additional Player Noise Impact As can be seen in our measurement results (see Table 1), the difference in human- generated noise between times with and without tennis court activity is extremely small compared to even very minor differences in traffic or other ambient noise. Even though human activity was much higher in general during the Saturday measurements—not only on the tennis courts—the slightly lower traffic counts were enough to make all of the Station 2 and 3 measurements (average, peak, and all percentiles) lower on that day. Slightly higher instantaneous readings could be observed during particularly loud racket strikes or player voices, but they occurred over sufficiently short periods of time that they did not affect overall levels. Tennis court noise was not even audible at Station 1, nor did it affect the measurements in any way. The ambient noise in this area is such that noise created by the tennis courts is negligible. Peak levels from the courts are dwarfed by those from automobile and air traffic, and the court noises occur over sufficiently short periods of time that they do not measurably affect average levels. Overall, the increased player activity that the lighting project creates will not have any significant impact on the noise levels at nearby residences. ii. Additional Vehicle Noise Impact The nearest house to the chub is approximately 200 feet from the center of the parking lot (and is even further from the clubhouse side of the lot, where any additional evening traffic is likely to be). An idling or slow-moving (IOmph and under)vehicle in a parking lot will create a noise level of no more than 36dBA measured at 200 feet away, which may not even be audible over freeway noise of 50dBA or above. The noise would increase an instantaneous 50dBA noise level by less than 0.2dBA, and this raised level would occur over sufficiently short periods of time that it could not significantly affect average noise levels. MWA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190,Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 13 Tei: (650)592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 77 Since all other residences are much further away from the parking lot, these are the worst-case scenarios for vehicle noise. Overall,the small amount of additional traffic that the lighting project creates will be insignificant in terms of its noise impact to nearby residences. This concludes our report. Feel free to contact Mei Wu Acoustics with any questions or concerns regarding this report. MWA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190,Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 14 Tel: (650)592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mel-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 78 MWOMei Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club sdomnie@fremonthills.com CC: Larry Russell,Fremont Hills Country Club law rence_charles@msn.com From: Jeff Irwin,Mei Wu Acoustics jeff@mei-wu.com Mei Wu,Mei Wu Acoustics meiwu@mei-wu.com Date: March 17,2014 Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club: Noise Impact of Tennis Court Lighting Project (Report#2) MWA Project 13026 This report is a supplement to our original report(issued June 6,2013)regarding the noise impact of the Tennis Court Lighting Project at Fremont Hills Country Club, located at 12889 Viscaino Place in Los Altos Hills,California. The report addresses specific exceptions taken to our original report, as listed in the peer review conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates (CSA Project 14- 0053, report issued February 13, 2014). We have included some additional calculations, using worst-case scenarios,to show the compliance of the lighting project with Section 5-2.02 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 1. First Exception: Irrelevant Measurement Times From the CSA Peer Review: Ambient Noise Measurements—The MWA report sites noise measurements between 8:50 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. and again between 2:15 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. These measurements times are not relevant to the primary goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended hours linto the nighil." Recommendation—Conduct nighttime measurements to quanta existing ambient noise levels during the hours of interest(e.g. 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Measure one full week to capture the variation between weekday nights and weekend nights. The municipal code will limit the noise due to tennis players on the court to 50 dBA during all daytime hours. (The courts will not be lit after 10:00pm, so nighttime noise limits will not be a concern.) The code does not include requirements for ambient noise— it is necessary only to show that the noise due to the players will not exceed 50 dBA. Therefore, the specific levels of ambient noise in the evening hours are not relevant to this code compliance study. Because of this, it is not necessary to take measurements during evening hours(as CSA recommends), so long as the noise code compliance of the tennis courts can be otherwise proven. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report#2 - 3/17/2014 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 1 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 79 Based on our measurements and calculations (refer to the following section of this report for details), we are confident that tennis court noise will not break the 50dBA limit, and consequently,will be in compliance with the municipal code. 2. Second Exception: Tennis Noise Not Measured From the CSA Peer Review: Tennis Activity Noise Measurements—Noise from tennis activity was not measured. The MWA report attempts to measure tennis activity noise at the property lines. However, at Station 1, "absolutely no tennis noise was discernable above the other ambient noise." At Station 2, "measurements were dominated by constant 1-280 traffic." And at Station 3 "were again dominated by constant 1-280 traffic." Recommendation—Measure tennis activity noise,compare these noise levels with the measured nighttime noise levels to assess noise ordinance compliance,predict audibility and annoyance. Per Section 5-2.02(b)of the municipal code,"[w]hen the[noise]source is on private property, measurements shall be made at any location on or beyond the property boundary." As the Fremont Hills Country Club is a private property, the noise due to tennis courts on club property is not relevant to the code;only the tennis court noise at the club's property boundary is relevant. Our three measurement locations were chosen because they are the along the boundaries between the club's property and the residential properties that contain the houses nearest to the tennis courts. The assertion made in CSA's peer review,that"[n]oise from tennis activity was not measured,"is incorrect. 2.a. Station 91 Tennis Court Noise In our original report, we showed that the equivalent noise levels at Station #1 did not exceed 50 dBA during moderately heavy tennis court use. As the total measured noise level during Saturday tennis play was 48.7 dBA (compared to a 46.2 dBA Monday measurement), it is known that the noise due to tennis at this location could not have been any higher than 48.7 dBA during that time. If it is assumed that Saturday morning traffic counts are one quarter of those during a weekday afternoon (an extremely conservative estimate), and if it is also assumed that traffic noise accounts for all of the ambient noise (also a conservative assumption, as not all portions of ambient noise will scale with traffic counts), then the total noise from the tennis players at the property line was no more than 48.0 dBA during the measured 30-minute period. If this level is adjusted for a worst-case evening scenario(based on the average number of players during measurement, and the maximum possible number of players during extended evening hours'),then the noise at the property line from the tennis l The maximum number of people on the courts during extended evening hours will be 20,according to a March 11,2014 email from Larry Russell of FHCC. -The Club does not currently have high profile events,tournaments and exhibitions when large audiences attend,Dar does the Club anticipate having such events in the future. In fact,to assure that these types of exhibitions,tournaments,etc.don't happen,a prohibition could simply be put into the Club's Conditional Use Permit Further,the Club does not have any areas with"stadium"seating or viewing areas for large numbers ofpeople. USTA league matches would be possible with 5 lit tennis courts,and,at maximum,such USTA matches could involve 3 courts of doubles(3 x 4=12 players)and 2 courts of singles(2 x 2—4 players).This would total 16 players plus perhaps 24 additional people(e.g.,non-playing captains and a couple of back-up or alternate players).Therefore,it's highly unlikely that USTA matches would involve more than about 20 people at the Club on any night" MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report#2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190,Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 2 3/17/2014 Tel: (650)592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mel-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 80 courts would be no more than 49.5 dBA. This level complies with Section 5-2.02 of the municipal code 2.b. Station#2 Tennis Court Noise In our original report, we showed that Station #2 equivalent noise levels did not exceed 50 dBA during moderately heavy tennis court use. Total noise measured on Saturday morning was 50.1 dBA (compared to 55.2 dBA on Monday afternoon). Under the assumptions described in Section 2.a,the equivalent tennis noise contributions at Station 42 were no more than 43.1 dBA during the measured time. If this number is adjusted for a full court, then the maximum evening tennis levels would be approximately 44.3 dBA. This complies with Section 5-2.02 of the municipal code. 2.c. Station#3 Tennis Court Noise Our original report showed a measured Saturday morning level of 50.8 dBA(compared to 52.2 dBA on Monday Afternoon). Under the very conservative assumptions that Saturday morning traffic counts are about one quarter of those on Monday afternoon,and that traffic noise accounts for the majority of the ambient noise, then the total noise due to tennis during this time was no more than 49.0 dBA. Adjusted for maximum evening occupancy, tennis activity would produce no more than 50.0 dBA at the property line. This level complies with the municipal code. Though our analysis shows it to be only borderline compliant, it must be noted that all of our equations and assumptions were formulated to be extremely conservative,in order to calculate an absolute worst case tennis noise level at each property line location. Equivalent A-weighted tennis noise levels of these magnitudes would rarely, if ever,occur under realistic conditions. Please see the attached appendix for additional information on our calculations and assumptions for this project. 3. Third Exception: Worst Case Conditions Not Addressed From the CSA Peer Review Potential Noise Impact—The MWA report only measures real-lime use of the tennis courts for 6 to 8 courts of singles tennis. The number of tennis players could more than double at any given time. This worst case condition was not considered. Also, the report does not mention special events such as exhibition matches that may have large?-audience attendance. Recommendations—Revise report to address worst-case condition off all courts being used simultaneously. Add an evaluation of special event noise(e.g.tournaments). We were told that the Fremont Hills Country Club does not host any special events (tournaments,exhibitions,etc.). There are no plans to hold such events,nor does the chub have any seating or viewing areas for audiences. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report#2- 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190,Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 3 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650)508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 81 Worst case tennis noise levels at each station were calculated, and they are included in the previous section of this report. As only five of the ten courts will be lit under the proposed lighting project,the worst case noise scenario includes,at most,20 people on the courts at any given time'. CSA's assertion that the evening court occupancy (compared to the number of players present during our measurements)could"more than double,"is incorrect. In conclusion, our reports have shown that tennis noise during the extended hours created by the lighting project will remain below 50 dBA. For this reason,the additional work recommended by Charles M. Salter Associates is not required. This concludes our follow-up report on the noise impact of the Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project. Feel free to contact Mei Wu Acoustics with any questions,comments, or concerns regarding our report. I MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report#2- 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190,Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 4 3/17/2014 Tel: (650)592-1675/Fax: (650)508-8727/www.mel-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 82 Appendix: Project Calculation Methods and Assumptions The following quantities were used in our calculations. All noise levels are 30-minute,equivalent, A-weighted levels using slow time averaging,as described in Section 5-2.02 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Ll — Monday afternoon measured noise level L2 — Saturday morning measured noise level LQ — Saturday morning ambient noise level Lt — Average tennis noise level per player LT — Total tennis noise level n — Number of tennis players on the court(s) nl — Average number of players during Monday afternoon measurements n2 — Average number of players during Saturday morning measurements r — Traffic adjustment factor;the ratio of weekday afternoon to weekend morning traffic counts The following assumptions were also made. • "Ambient'is defined as all non-tennis-court noise. • Measured levels L1 and L2 include all noise(ambient and tennis). • The calculated level La, includes not only traffic,but also other environmental noise(wind, animal noises,pedestrians,etc.) • Saturday morning traffic counts were assumed to be roughly one quarter of Monday afternoon traffic counts(r = 4). Since the measured levels(Ll and L2)include contributions of both ambient and tennis noise,the following basic equations apply. L1 = 10loglo(r10 o+n,1010) L2 = 1010910(10 0+n21010 Therefore,the total tennis noise level LT at a particular location,due to n players on the courts, is given by the following. LT = 1010910 n nl (1010 —r 1010 n2 — r MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report#2- 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190,Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 5 3/17/2014 Tel: (650)592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 83 Because it is impossible to separate the contributions of ambient and tennis noise in a sound level meter reading, certain assumptions had to be made. In order to account for a worst case scenario in terms of tennis noise,all assumptions were made very conservatively. These assumptions and their explanations are detailed below. • Calculations were conducted as if all ambient noise behaved as traffic noise,and scaled with I-280 traffic counts. Since this would not be true of most non-traffic noise sources (wind, bird/insect sounds,etc.),the actual Saturday ambient contributions would have been higher than calculated, and the actual tennis contributions would have been lower. • Traffic counts were assumed to have decreased by a factor of four(an approximate 6 dBA decrease) between Monday afternoon (toward the beginning of rush hour) and Saturday morning. This is an extremely conservative estimate, as it assumes Saturday traffic contributions to be lower than they would actually have been, and tennis contributions to therefore be higher than they would actually have been. • Reductions in traffic noise due to decreased vehicle numbers were considered, but not increases in traffic noise due to increased vehicle speed. As there was less congestion on Saturday morning, and traffic was moving at a higher speed, the actual traffic noise difference between Monday afternoon and Saturday morning was likely much less than the approximately 6 dBA used in our calculations. • While measuring at Stations#2 and#3,there were tennis players occupying both Court#2 and Court #3, the two closest courts to the respective measurement locations. Neither of these two courts will be lit under the lighting project, so our calculations likely over-predict the tennis noise levels at Stations#2 and#3 that will be present during the extended hours. • Tennis players were primarily involved in singles play during the time ofineasurement,while maximum evening capacity would involve the majority of players being involved in doubles play'. Since the main source of tennis noise at the property lines is the sound of the ball being hit,a doubles match with four people is not actually"twice as loud"as a singles match with two people. Our equations do not account for this fact, and therefore they likely over-predict the worst-case tennis noise levels. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report#2- 3 Twin Dolphin Drive,Suite 190, Redwood City,CA 94065-1516 6 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Resolution 54-14 Page 84 $NoMei Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie,Fremont Hills Country Club sdomnie@fremonthills.com CC: Larry Russell,Fremont Hills Country Club lawrence_charles@msn.com From: Gabriel Messin her Mei Wu Acoustics gabriel@mei-wu.com g g @ .com Jeff Irwin,Mei Wu Acoustics jeff@mei-wu.com Mei Wu,Mei Wu Acoustics meiwu@mei-wu.com Date: May 30,2014 Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club: Noise Impact of Tennis Court Lighting Project (Report#3) MWA Project 13026 This report presents the results of our noise measurements taken on the evening of Wednesday, May 28th, 2014, at the Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Altos Hills, CA. These measurements were taken to address concerns voiced by Charles M. Salter Associates, regarding the noise impact of tennis play during extended evening hours. Mei Wu Acoustics visited the club on May 28th, and conducted three ambient noise measurements along the club's northeastern property line at Roble Ladera Road. Measurements were taken between the hours of 8:00pm and 8:30pm, when traffic and ambient noise were lower than they were during our previous daytime measurements. There was no one on the tennis courts during the visit, so we were only able to measure ambient noise levels. It was difficult to find people playing at these hours because there is no lighting in the courts. All measurements were taken using a Norsonic Norl18 type-1 precision sound level meter, calibrated on-site with a Norsonic Nor1251 calibrator. i •. : "j . :-`Std O . .� ` � �L ti .�. •�'"" �1� - iia Figure I—measurement locations for evening ambient noise,May 282014(street addresses are estimated). The noise levels measured at the three locations shown above (in order from left to right in Figure 1) were: 50.2 dBA, 50.7 dBA, and 51.8 dBA, respectively. The main source of noise observed during the time of measurement was highway I-280. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin DrivebtE tibRUOPJAwoocl City, CA 94065-1516 Page 851 Tel: (650) 592-1675/Fax: (650) 508-8727/www.mei-wu.com Though we were not able to obtain measurements of tennis noise during this evening visit, we know (based on calculations) that the tennis noise contribution is below the noise code limit of 50 dBA, as explained in our previous report, dated March 17th, 2014. As we have shown in this previous report, noise from the tennis courts complies with Chapter 7 of the Los Altos Hills General Plan, and also complies with Section 5-2.02 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Noise Ordinance. This concludes our report. Feel free to contact Mei Wu Acoustics with any questions or concerns regarding our report. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Driv 'Sue.19 wood City, CA 94065-1516 g 2 Tel: (650) 592-16759%11N-MS-8727/www.mei-wu.com Pae 86 II EXHIBIT D Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 13 February 2014 130 Sutter Street Audiovisual Floor 5 Son Francisco.CA Telecommunications Cynthia Richardson 94104 Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security F 415.397.0454 crichardsonCoblosaltoshills.ca.gov WWW«r,sdtWcW Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M Salter PE CSA Project: 14-0053 Dwid FL ScN w d FRES ErcI.&oodhure PE Dear Cynthia: P61 p N Sander%IEED AP Therms A.Saw+der PE - ,u,thonyP NaA,PE We have completed our peer review of the acoustical study prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics (MWA). The Crat,noL.Mryo, subject study was to evaluate the potential impact to neighbors resulting from extended hours of JasanR.Ddy.PE tennis play at night made possible by a new lighting system. This letter summarizes our comments on DwondItBegwit,R+DFAES the MWA analysis for the subject project. Joseph G.UAnw6 Thor.m J.Corbett.CTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Enc A.Yee Joshes M Roper.PE LEED AP Peter K.HoW,PE.LEED AP The MWA report does not adequately address the acoustical impact for the following reasons: Eamon C.Salter,PE LEED AP TFwnwsD,Wier CDT a Existing nighttime noise levels were not presented Crag L.G'on RCDD a Noise from tennis activity was not presented LloydB.Ronolo e The study does not address noise from possible worst-case scenarios A!"oncier K Salter,PE JerenyL.Deaer.PE REPORT EXCEPTIONS TAKEN Rob Flommnor%4 PSP,WCET RI "asoel S.Choe ArdrerIMcKee 1. Ambient Noise Measurements—The MWA report sites noise measurements between 8:50 a.m. to Pod R.Vings 11:50 a.m. and again between 2:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. These measurement times are not relevant volene C.Sndh to the primary goal of the report which is to"assess the noise impacts of tennis courts'extended Er:kaAFredond hours [into the night]." Beniamn D.Piper Ehsobeth S Kelson Joslum 1 Harrison Recommendation—Conduct nighttime measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels Brian c Wourms during the hours of interest(e.g. 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Measure one full week to capture the Shonna M SeHnan variation between weekday nights and weekend nights, Amanda G.FMgbie Ryan G.RoAop,LEED AP 2, Tennis Activity Noise Measurements— Noise from tennis activity was not measured. The MWA Dego H"na"d°= report attempts to measure tennis activity noise at the property lines. However, at Station 1, Ryan A.SchoWd "absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above the other ambient noise."At Station 2 Joal Croon r m Brim IGood "measurements were dominated by constant I-280 traffic."And at Station 3"were again Heather A.Salter dominated by constant I-280 traffic." D«E Cartes Cothenm F.Sw,rloct Recommendation—Measure tennis activity noise, compare these noise levels with the measured Mono De veor-hlaardzee nighttime noise levels to assess noise ordinance compliance,predict audibility and annoyance. Elizabeth F.Trockw Jennifer G.Pakror Jennifer G Pie: 3. Potential Noise Impact—The MWA report only measures real-time use of the tennis courts for 6 to Su nE_lonergon 8 courts of singles tennis. The number of tennis players could more than double at any given time. Courney R vineys Ern D.Gorton Megan C Santos Resolution 54-14 Page 87 Fremont Tennis Club Peer Review Acoustical Consulting 13 February 2014 Page 2 This worst case condition was not considered. Also, the report does not mention special events such as exhibition matches that may have larger audience attendance. Recommendations—Revise report to address worst-case condition of all courts being used simultaneously. Add an evaluation of special event noise(e.g. tournaments). This concludes our peer review for the subject project. Should you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. ( "I�' -plj�— Eric A. Yee Principal Consultant 1014-01-10 Fremont Tennis Cub Peer Review EAY/eay Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco,CA 94104 T 415.3970442 F 415 3970454 www.crosaher.com Resolution 54-14 Charles M pW#pr INC .t Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 2 June 2014 130 Sutter Street Audiovisual Floor 5 Cynthia Richardson Son jFrFrancisco,CA Telecommunications Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security crichardsonMosaltoshilis.ca.gov F 415.397.0454 www.crosolter.corn Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M.Salter.PE CSA Project: 14-0053 David R.Sd wund,FRES Eric L.Broo&iurst PE Dear Cynthia: Ph hp K Souders,LEED AP Tomas A.Sclrndler PE AnthanyP Nosh.PE The most recent acoustical study from Mei Wu Acoustics measured the ambient noise between the C,wma t_MiyW hours of 8:00 pm and 8:30 pm at the residences closest to the tennis club. The background noise Jason R.Duty PE ranges from 51-52 dBA. Durand R.Begwk.PhD,FAES Joseph G.DAngelo Based on other tennis court studies we have performed, the average noise level from a singles match Thomasl Corbe",CTS on one tennis court is 54 dBA when measured 50 feet from the court side line. The nearest neighbors Enc A.T« Joshua M.Roper,PE,LEAD Yee are almost 500 feet from the tennis courts. At this distance, we calculate the noise from a single match AP Pater K.HoW,PE,LEED AP to be approximately 34 dBA. This average noise level is 17 decibels below the nighttime ambient and Ethan C.Salter,PE,LEED AP would not be normally audible. ihamas D.Keller,CDT Craig L G4ian RCDO If all ten courts were occupied simultaneously, the worst-case average noise would increase by 10 Lloyd B.Ronclo decibels to 44 dBA when measured at the nearest property line. This assumes all people are playing at Kwander K.Salter,PE once. Even under these conditions, the tennis noise level is 6 decibels below the existing nighttime Jemmy L.Dedter,PE Rob Hommond,PSP,MCET III background noise. At these noise levels tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and unless a JwchaelS.Chae person was specifically listening for tennis activity, these noises should go unnoticed. Andrea J.McKee Poul R.Beings Human voices are often the loudest source of noise during a tennis matching. Shouting and emotional Valerie C.S.6 outbursts could be audible even at 500 feet. In our experience, the noise from tennis balls and shoes Erka A Frederick squeaks is not nearly as offensive as coarse or rude language. The club should encourage good Beniamn D.Piper EhsabethS.Keison sportsman behavior using signage and friendly staff reminders of residences. Joshua J.Harrison Brian C.wo�rms This concludes our peer review for the subject project. Should you have any questions, please give us Sharia M suhi an a call. Amonda G.H.gbie Ryon G.Roskop LEED AP Sincerely, D*W Hernandez Ryan A.Scho6e'd Jamal K,nm CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Bran J.Good `7' Heather A.Salter Dee E.Garcia Catherine F.Spuriod Eric A. Yee Marva DeYeor-Noordzee Principal Consultant Ehzobeth F.Trocker Jennifer G.Palmer Jodesso G.Cortez 2014-02-10 Fremont Tennis Club Peer Review Susan E.Lonergon EA Yleay Courtney H Vmoys Erin D.Gorton Megan C Santos Resolution 54-14 Page 89 EXHIBIT E u HUMON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Memorandum Date: May 6, 2014 To: Ms. Cynthia Richardson, Town of Los Altos Hills From: Gary Black Matt Nelson Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Altos Hills, California Hexagon Transportation(Consultants,'Inc. has completed'`this traffic analysis for the"proposed addition of lights to 5 tennis courts at the Fremont Hills Country Club located at 12889 Viscaino Place in Los Altos Hills, California. The proposed project would amend the Town's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance in order to allow recreation court lighting for five of the Club's existing tennis courts. Currently there is no outdoor lighting available to this area so the tennis court hours are dependent upon the changing seasons.With the addition of the outdoor lighting, playing hours would be extended to 10:00 PM throughout the year. Depending on the time of year, the addition of court lighting would lead to an increase in traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways during the evening hours. During the winter months, the added lights would extend the playing hours from approximately 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM. During the fall and spring months, the added lights would extend the playing hours from approximately 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. During the summer months, the added lights would extend the playing hours from approximately 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM. To provide the most conservative analysis, Hexagon chose to analyze the project for a Winter scenario when the addition of court lighting would lead to the highest traffic increases on the surrounding roadways. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the increase in traffic volumes associated with the extended tennis court hours. In consultation with City staff, key roadway segments were'chosen for the analysis based on (1)their proximity to the site and (2)the most common routes used to access the site. The key roadway segments analyzed as part of the study are identified below and shown on Figure 1. t Study Roadway Segments 1. Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road 2. Purissima Road, south of Rhoda Drive 3. Purissima Road, between Concepcion Road and La Paloma Road 4. Viscaino Road, between Roble Ladera Road and La Cresta Drive 5. Viscaino Place, south of Viscaino Road Twenty-four hour traffic counts were conducted for one week on the above roadway segments.The traffic analysis reports the existing daily traffic volumes and added daily project trips, as well as the existing hourly night time traffic volumes and added night time project trips when traffic would increase due to the lights. Resolution 54-14 Page 90 I I Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study I Existing Transportation Setting Driveway access to the country club's main parking lot is provided on Viscaino Place. There is an additional driveway on Roble Ladera Road that leads to a parking lot that serves the horse stables. Although adjacent to the tennis court, per Fremont Hills Country Club staff, that parking lot is not used by tennis members. Motorists accessing the club also use Purissima Road and Viscaino Road. These roadways are described below. Purissima Road is a two-lane, north-south, neighborhood collector roadway that begins at Arastradero Road in the north and continues south to Robleda Road. Purissima Road is located west of the Fremont Hills Country Club and provides access to the Club via Viscaino Road. Viscaino Road is a two-lane, east-west, neighborhood collector roadway that begins at Purissima Road in the west and continues east to Concepcion Road. Viscaino Road is located north of the Fremont Hills Country Club and provides access to the Club via Viscaino Place. C Viscaino Place is a two-lane, north-south, local roadway that begins at Viscaino Road in the north and continues south to its termination at the parking lot of the project site. Viscaino Place provides direct access to the Country Club. Roble Ladera Road is a two-lane, north-south, local roadway that begins at Viscaino Road in the north and continues south to Purissima Road. Roble Ladera Road is located immediately east of the Fremont Hills Country Club and has a driveway that provides direct access to the Country Club horse stables. Project Conditions Project conditions quantify the traffic that would be added to existing traffic counts on the study roadways due to the tennis court lighting project. Trip Generation Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by the lighting project and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1)trip generation, (2)trip distribution, and (3)trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated on an hourly basis. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. Since the tennis courts currently exist at the Country Club, the only new trips that will be generated by the project will be during the evening hours when the court lighting is needed. Depending on the time of year, new trips will begin arriving at the Country Club between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM and continue until 10:00 PM. To provide the most conservative analysis, Hexagon chose to analyze the project for a Winter scenario when the lights would be used between the 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM hours. The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular project is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rate by the size of the project. Trip generation rates come from empirical research that is compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)manual entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. The manual includes trip generation rates for tennis clubs. Based on ITE's trip generation rates for Racquet/Tennis Clubs, the project would generate 17 trips per hour during the 4:00 PM through 10:00 PM hours, which would lead to a maximum increase of 102 daily trips(17 trips x 6 hours). The 102 daily trips are a conservative estimate based on the assumption that current tennis members leave before 5:00 PM during the months of December and January. With the addition of tennis lights, it was assumed that tennis members would arrive between 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM and leave between 5:00 PM and shortly after 10:00 PM. Therefore, Hexagon assumed a worst case scenario of up to six additional hours of court use could be provided during these two winter months. At I� gemen Traosuoitation(oosultants.Inc. �� Resolution 54-14 page I Page 91 I 1 I Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study other times of the year, the traffic increase due to the lights would be less. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Project Trip Generation Estimates PM Peak Hour of Pk-Hr Land Use Courts Rate Total Tennis Courts/a/ 5 3.35 17 Notes: /a/Tennis Court rates based on ITE Trip Generation,9th Edition,average rates, for Raquet/Tennis Club(Land Use 491). The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system. The new trips generated by the proposed project were added to the roadway network in accordance with the project trip generation and distribution described above(see Figure 2). Based on the traffic count data, we estimate that 50%of the project trips would be oriented to and from the north, 35%would be from the south, 13%would be from the east, and 2%would be from the west. The traffic from the north and west would use Purissima Road to Viscaino Road and park in the main parking lot. The traffic from the east would use Viscaino Road and park in the main parking lot. The traffic from the south would use Purissima Road to Viscaino Road to the main lot. Traffic Volume with Project Hexagon analyzed the potential daily and evening (4:00 PM to 10:00 PM)traffic increases due to the proposed tennis court lighting project on nearby street segments. Daily traffic counts were collected from Monday February 10th to Sunday February 16"', 2014 on Roble Ladera Road, Purissima Road,Viscaino Road, and Viscaino Place in the vicinity of the project site(see Appendix for traffic count data). It should be noted that the nearby baseball fields were scheduled for use during the time the counts were conducted. According to the Los Altos Hills Little League 2014 calendar, all four of the nearby baseball fields were scheduled for practices on Monday through Friday between the hours of 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM and Saturday/Sunday between the hours of 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM. The Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan classifies roadways into the following four categories: local roads, neighborhood connector roads, collector roads, and arterial roads. According to the General Plan, Viscaino Place and Roble Ladera Road are classified as Local Roads,which typically carry traffic volumes of less than 1,000 ADT(average daily traffic). According to the General Plan, Purissima Road and Viscaino Road are classified as Neighborhood Connector Roads, which typically carry traffic volumes ranging from 1,000 ADT to 5,000 ADT. Both daily and hourly traffic from the proposed tennis court lighting project were added to existing traffic volumes(see Tables 2, 3, and 4). The resulting daily traffic volumes were compared to those identified as typical in the General Plan.The hourly volumes also are shown for informational purposes. The Town does not have any standards or guidelines for acceptable hourly traffic volumes. The following paragraphs describe the added traffic estimates for each nearby street. • Viscaino Place, south of Viscaino Road. The counts show 586 weekday daily vehicles and 373 weekend daily vehicles on Viscaino Place, south of Viscaino Road. The tennis court lights would result in up to 102 added daily trips during both a typical weekday and weekend. Thus, the total expected traffic volume under project conditions is 688 and 475 daily vehicles during the weekday and weekend, respectively. With the addition of project trips, this road would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. ® 1 n Warton Transportation Consultants.Inc. u Resolution 54-14 Page 1 3Page 92 i Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study • Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road. The counts show 135 fl weekday daily vehicles and 89 weekend daily vehicles on Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road. Per the Fremont Hills Country Club staff, the proposed project would add no additional trips to Roble Ladera Road. Thus,the total expected traffic volume under project conditions would remain at 135 and 89 daily vehicles during the weekday and weekend, respectively. With the addition of the project, this road would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. • Viscaino Road, east of Roble Ladera Road. The counts show 536 weekday daily vehicles and 400 weekend daily vehicles on Viscaino Road, east of Roble Ladera Road. The proposed project would add up to 14 daily trips during both a typical weekday and weekend. Thus, the total expected traffic volume under project conditions is 550 and 414 daily vehicles during the weekday and weekend, respectively. With the addition of project trips, this road would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. Purissima Road, south of Rhoda Drive. The counts show 2,124 weekday daily vehicles and 1,363 weekend daily vehicles on Purissima Road, south of Rhoda Drive. The proposed project would add up to 50 daily vehicles during both a typical weekday and weekend. Thus, the total expected traffic volume under project conditions is 2,174 and 1,413 daily vehicles during the weekday and weekend, respectively. With the addition of project trips, this section of Purissima Road would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. • Purissima Road, north of La Paloma Road. The counts show 1,484 weekday daily vehicles and 1,017 weekend daily vehicles on Purissima Road, north of La Paloma Road. The proposed project would add up to 36 daily trips during both a typical weekday and weekend. Thus, the total expected traffic volume under project conditions is 1,520 and 1,053 daily vehicles during the weekday and weekend, respectively. With the addition of project trips, this section of Purissima Road would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. Conclusion Based on the analysis for the tennis court lighting project at the Fremont Hills Country Club, the project would generate u to 17 new tris per hour when the lights were on. This calculates to 102 new daily 9 P P P 9 y trips during the winter months,when the lights would be on for about 6 hours.At other times of the year, the traffic increase due to the lights would be less.With the addition of daily project trips, all of the study roadway segments would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan. Table 2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes D. Daily Total Roadway Weekday . Roble Ladera Rd 135 89 0 135 89 Purissima Rd s/o Rhoda Dr 2,124 1,363 50 2,174 1,413 n/o La Paloma Rd 1,484 1,017 36 1,520 1,053 Viscaino Rd 536 400 14 550 414 Viscaino PI 586 373 102 688 475 n hexagon Transportation(oosuftaots.Inc. U Resolution 54-14 Page 14Page 93 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Table 3 Hourly Weekday PM Volumes Avg.WeekdayHourly •.. 11 • 11 • 11 ' 11 ' : 11 • • 11PM 10:OOPM ProjectTrips Roble Ladera Rd 11 13 5 3 4 5 1 0 Purissima Rd s/o Rhoda Dr 189 227 167 100 63 52 35 9 n/o La Paloma Rd 141 202 119 57 37 36 20 6 Viscaino Rd 57 66 36 25 15 14 5 2 Viscaino PI 70 88 48 52 10 9 4 17 Table 4 Hourly Weekend PM Volumes TripsAvg.Weekend Hourly PM Roadway11 11 11 ' 11 11 /1PM 10:OOPM ProjectTrips Roble Ladera Rd 8 9 4 2 1 2 1 0 Purissima Rd s/o Rhoda Dr 84 86 72 54 33 41 37 9 i n/o La Paloma Rd 85 72 42 39 22 25 14 6 Viscaino Rd 29 22 14 3 6 6 4 2 Viscaino PI 21 16 7 2 3 0 0 17 t ® n iu genion lra portation Consultants.Inc. Resolution 54-14 Page I `page 94 Fremont Hill Country Club -Traffic Analysis 0 m e v c iA N_. d a 2 m Viscaino Rd �d 4 < L d. 5 a� a a O �.0acaet oc�a a� °o Go° m oea 3 °F A 0d�� oo\eaa�a LEGEND ® =Project Site Location Figure 1 =Study Segment Site Location and Study Segments uN t X M O N Resolution 54-14 Page 95 NORTH roses Fremont Hill Country Club -Traffic Analysis a 0 ro e O ° -a- 3 3 0 a Z 50(9) 13% H d \/iscaino Rd 14(2) 1 7 102(17 n i 9 :1 X06%� Ny r O } r \ da f a 0(0) I �a ° �e c, Goc a m lea o Jmm 3 36(6) A �-ve 0 il`s p �o LEGEND =Project Site Location =Study Segment XX(XX) Figure 2=ADT(Hourly Trips) Project Trip Distribution and Assignment b d H E X AG O N Resolution 54-14 Page 96 ' NORTH nd m sa. EXHIBIT F [non That Mov=Your Community Transportation - — Consultants April 21, 2014 Scott Domnie General Manager Fremont Hills Country Club 1 12889 Viscaino Place ! Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Via Email only: sdomnie(cDfremonthills.com i Subject: Peer Review of Hexagon Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Altos Hills I Dear Mr. Domnie: TJKM Transportation Consultants has performed this peer review of the Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Alto Hills (TIA) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and dated March 18, 2014. In general, the overall approach and analysis methodology used in the TIA is sound, but is very conservatively high in estimating additional traffic resulting with the proposed addition of lights to five tennis courts. Furthermore, a few fundamental assumptions used in the analysis are flawed and lead to significant overestimation of the additional traffic that would result with the project, as described below. Significant Overstatement of Traffic Added with Project 88'? hi1M'b i)6E: f additional Hours During Winter Months . The TIA assumes that with the proposed addition of recreation court lighting at five of the Club's existing tennis.courts, playing hours:would be extended to 10:00 p.m. throughout the yeat- instead of ending when darkness arrives in the evening under the existing conditions. The TIA also incorrectly assumes those extended playing hours would start at 4:00 p.m. during winter months. Pleasanton Based on this flawed assumption, the TIA analysis assumes six (6) additional hours of play at the 4305 Hacienda Drive { tennis courts to estimate the additional daily traffic resulting with the project. Suite 550 I Pleasanton,CA 94588-2798 TJKM independently reviewed data for Los Altos Hills on sunset times throughout the year and 925.463.061 1 925.463.3690 fax found thatthe earliest sunset time was 4:51 p.m., which occurs from November 30th through Fresno ! December,14th. Under typical conditions, sufficient light remains for at least 10 to 15 minutes 516 W.Shaw Avenue after sunset to continue playing tennis, which extends existing court use until.-a_few minutes after Suite 5:00 m. on the earliest sunset days in December. Staff at Fremont Hills Count Club has Fresno,CCA A p. y Country 93704-2515 � confirmed that tennis play typically continues past 5:00 p.m. at that time of year. This means that 559.325.7530 I 559.221.4940 fax I tennis members currently leave after 5:00 p.m. on the earliest sunset days in December. Sacramento However, the TIA assumes that tennis members currently leave before 5:00 p.m. during December 980 Ninth Street and January. 16Lh Floor Sacramento,CA j 95814-2736 The TIA also assumes that with the addition of lights, tennis members would start arriving as early 916.449.9095 as 4:00 p.m.during winter months for the new extended hours of play. However, staff at Fremont Santa Rosa i Hills Country Club states that tennis players typically arrive no more than 10 minutes ahead of 1400 N.Dutton Avenue j Suite 21 their start of play. Based on the information presented in the previous paragraph, the new Santa Rosa,CA extended hours of play with the addition of lights would start after 5:00 p.m. during the earliest 95401-4643 707.575.5800 sunset days in December. Therefore, tennis members would typically start arriving at 707.575.5888 fax I approximately 5:00 p.m. for the new extended hours of play on those earliest sunset days. t1km@gkm.cotn I Assuming playing hours would end at 10:00 p.m., the traffic analysis should assume only five (5) v wvv.tlkm.com Resolution 54-14 ll,iLe 97 Scott Domnie April 21, 2014 Page 2 additional hours of play at the tennis courts to estimate the additional daily traffic resulting with the project during that worst-case time of year. r Using the 17 trips per hour estimated for the five lighted tennis courts as described in the TIA, and assuming the worst-case maximum of five additional playing hours, a maximum increase of 85 daily trips would result during the earliest sunset days of December. At this point, it may be helpful to clarify the distinction between"trips"and the number of vehicles involved. Each vehicle accessing the site corresponds to two (2) trips: one trip when it enters and one trip when it exits the site. In other words,the number of vehicles accessing the site equals half the total number of daily trips. Therefore, the projected maximum increase of 85 daily trips corresponds to 43 vehicles entering and exiting the site during the five additional playing hours on the earliest sunset days in December. With 85 additional trips instead of the 102 trips estimated in the TIA, the traffic volume increases on nearby streets described in the TIA should be reduced proportionally, and I Table 2 of the TIA presenting the average daily traffic volumes should be revised accordingly. Additionally,Tables 3 and 4, showing hourly weekday and weekend p.m.volumes respectively, should be revised by deleting the 4:00 p.m. data column, which is not an additional playing hour as described above. Lack of Traffic Estimates for Non-Winter Months The TIA text acknowledges that the analysis assumes a worst-case scenario using the maximum number of additional playing hours during winter months, and that at other times of year the extended playing hours would be shorter times and the traffic increase due to the lights would be less. However, the TIA does not provide any specific traffic estimates for seasons other than the worst-case winter months. TJKM's independent review of data for Los Altos Hills found the following sunset times: • Before 6:00 p.m.from the first weekend in November(when time changes from daylight saving to standard)through March I st • After 6:00 p.m. prior to the first weekend in November • After 6:00 p.m. starting March ISS • After 7:00 p.m. starting the second weekend in March (when time changes from standard to daylight saving) • After 7:00 p.m. prior to the last week of September • After 8:00 p.m.from May 5th until mid-August x Using these full hour increments of additional daylight to be conservative (rather than shorter increments such as half-hour intervals), TJKM estimates the following maximum extended play - periods and their durations in months with the addition of lights at five tennis courts: • 5:00 to 10:00 = 5 hours;first weekend of November through March I St=4 months (max.) • 6:00 to 10:00 =4 hours; March lu through second weekend of March plus last week of September through first weekend of November= 1.75 months • 7:00 to 10:00 = 3 hours; second weekend of March through May 5,h plus mid-August until last week of September = 3 months • 8:00 to 10:00=2 hours; May 5th through mid-August= 3.25 months Based on these conservative assumptions, the maximum of 85 additional daily trips resulting with five hours of extended play could occur during a maximum of four months of the year (mid-Fall to Resolution 54-14 Page 98 i Scutt Dumnic April 21, 2014 Page 3 late Winter. During the other eight months of the year, fewer additional daily trips would result as follows: • 68 additional daily trips (4 hours x 17 trips/hour)for 1.75 months (early March, early Fall) • 51 additional daily trips (3 hours x 17 trips/hour)for 3 months (early Spring, late Summer) • 34 additional daily trips (2 hours x 17 trips/hour)for at least 3.25 months (late Spring to mid-Summer) The weighted average number of additional daily trips during the year based on the distribution described above would be 60 trips per day, which corresponds to 30 vehicles entering and exiting the site. With the seasonal numbers of additional trips described above instead of the 102 trips estimated in the TIA, the traffic volume increases on nearby streets described in the TIA should be reduced proportionally. Note that the corresponding numbers of individual vehicles entering and exiting the site are half of the numbers of additional daily trips cited above. Assignment of Additional Traffic to Roble Ladera Road The TIA assumes (page 3) that some of the traffic accessing the tennis courts from the south would use Roble Ladera Road to and from the Fremont Hills Country Club's secondary parking lot located behind and above the tennis courts. However, this secondary parking lot is intended for use by the adjacent equestrian component of the Club, including equestrian trailer parking in the portion of the lot closest to the tennis courts, and tennis member use of this lot is negligible according to Club staff. Based on this information, TJKM concludes that all traffic accessing the tennis courts should be assumed to use the main parking lot via Viscaino Place. The TIA assumes that most of the traffic accessing the tennis courts from the south would use Purissima Road to Viscaino Road to Viscaino Place to the main parking lot, and reverse this route sequence when departing to the south. This route to and from the main parking lot is clearly more direct and convenient for drivers than a possible alternative route via Roble Ladera Road between Purissima Road and Viscaino Road to access the main parking lot. TJKM concludes that none of the additional traffic accessing the tennis courts should be assigned to Roble Ladera Road, and all of the additional traffic should be assigned to Viscaino Place (between the main parking lot and Viscaino Road). The TIA text and Tables 2, 3, and 4 should be revised accordingly. Conclusion TJKM concurs with the TIA conclusion that with the addition of daily project trips, all of the study roadway segments would remain within typical volume ranges described in the Town General Plan. TJKM appreciates the opportunity to provide this peer review. If you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 264-5025 or email at rhaygood(d)tjkm.com . Very truly yours, Richard K. Haygood, PE, TE `( Director of Traffic & Multimodal Studies 1 J.-VURISDICTIOMOLos Altos Hillslfremont Hills COLR 042 1 14 Traffic Study Peer Review.docx Resolution 54-14 Page 99