HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
ITEM 5.1
December 5,.:2013.
SUBJECT; STUDY SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS- TO MUNICIPAL
CODE TITLE. 10, CHAPTER" 2, "ARTICLE 10, RECREATION COURTS
(OUTDOOR LIGHTING`'ORDINANCE), FILE #11 -13. -CUP .
FROM: BriadFroelich, AICP, Associate Planner
APPROVEDW. Debbi6Pedro :AICP,. Planning Director '
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Review„the.,staffreport-and-proposed Ordinance amendment;lake public, _testimony,..make
recommendations and provide direction. to staff and the - applicants
.BACKGROUND.-....:_, -- - --- .._ �_...:....._... - . ,. .
Fremont `Hill"s Country `Club (FHCC);located at 12889 Viscaino Court ;h
as' to
amend -the Outdoor,Ligliting-Ordinance to.all_ow recreation court lighting: FHCC`is also
seeking. an, amendment to the :property's Conditional `Use Permit . (CUP) ' to : allow
recreation,g9t4tXghting. The ci!7ent,FHCCJCUP -conditions are included in Attachment
The Town's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance,' Section 10-2.1002 : prohibits recreation court.
lighting _ . _.............. _._..
` 10-2:1602-Recreadon.courts
No . artif eiat .lighting shall. be permitted for tennis and other regreat#an •courts. (§ 15,
Ord 299, eff. December 11, 1985; -� 1(part); Ord. 390, eff. November"74,.1997)
The: Town's -Open Space and Recreation -Element G6al-2 notes the'following policy.:
Policy .2.7:PaTk:arid recreationea shall be:utilized, and uses controlled so::as to not,
adversely affect the,surrounding residential- areas.
The above. noted,:Municipal Code !Section prohibits.. recreation .court .lighting: and, -became
effective via.Ordinance 299 in 1985.: Review of:Fremont Hills CountryClub'& Condition
Use . Permit ,shows 1that sit& lighting hasp beenr limited by .they CUP conditions -dating ,back
to 1.9576--,16. 076 the � CJP : vV_as :` aimnded to . specifically state that .'Wo .lighted; ..tennis
courts for night-time tennis are..permitted".
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
FHCC Court Lighting
Study Session
December 5, 2013
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
Ordinance 299 effectively prohibits recreational court lighting in Los Altos Hills. FHCC
has approached the Town with a proposal to amend the Municipal Code and to amend the
Club's operations CUP to allow recreation court lighting of five (5) existing tennis courts
on the property. This would extend playing hours on the lighted courts to l Opm.
The club has provided informational binders that include additional project and lighting
details for Planning Commission review.
FHCC has proposed to amend Municipal Code Section 10-2.1002 to allow court lighting
on Recreational designated properties per the General Plan Land Use Map.
Public Outreach
FHCC has reported to the Town that they conducted neighborhood outreach in both 2010
and 2012. Their summary was that the feedback was generally supportive from nearby
property owners. (Attachment #6, tabs 7 & 8)
Public Comment
Town staff has received six emails commenting on the proposal as of the writing of this
report (Attachment #4).
Environmental Review (CEOA)
FHCC has provided a Noise Impact Report and a Lighting Impact Report. An initial
study will need to be prepared and an environmental determinatiommade regarding My- .
significant project impacts.
Next Steps
Town staff and FHCC are looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and
interested Town residents. Based on the feedback, additional information or alterations to
the proposal may be warranted.
The proposed Ordinance and CUP amendments will be scheduled for a public hearing
before the Planning Commission at a future date. The Planning Commission is advisory
and will provide a recommendation to the City Council. To adopt Ordinance amendments
or modify Conditional Use Permits, the City Council will also hold a public hearing.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
FHCC Court Lighting
Study Session
December 5, 2013
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. LAHMC Title 10, Chapter 2, Article 10 (Outdoor Lighting)
2. Current FHCC CUP conditions
3. Lighting Impact Report, Benaya Burnett Consultancy, June 6, 2013
4. Noise Impact Report, Mei Wu Acoustics, June 6, 2013
5. Public Comments (chronological order received)
6. Project informational binders (Planning Commission only)
--APITA01IMENT 1
Article 10..,Outdoor Lighting
10-2.1001 Purpose.
The purposes of this article' are: (1) to assure that outdoor -lighting,. both on the exterior of structures and
along walkways, driveways, and landscape features, maintains the openness and quiet atmosphere.of the
Town and minimizes excessive use of energy; (2) to provide lighting for safety and adequate. lighting for
the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, such as around patios and pools; and (3) to prevent lighting which is
intrusive.and which imposes on the privacy and quiet enjoyment of neighboring. properties. (§ 1 (part),
Ord. 390, eff. November 14, 1997)
10-2.1002 Recreation courts.
No artificial lighting shall be permitted for tennis and other recreation courts. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff.
December. 11, -1995; § 1 (part), Ord. 390,-eff. November 14; 1997)
10-2:1003. Swimming- pools and, spas.
Artifcial lighttng of swimming pools.and,spas sliali be permitted,only under the,l'ohowm,congconditions:. , .
,,,. . ,:.•..
(a) ;"I,ights are.placed:beneathh.the!surface.-of the water in the:pool;or;spa-,to:illuminate,
water;,. 0(,
Other exterior Iights used to illuminate the surrounding area use the minimum number
and wattage of lighting which will safely illuminate the area.
(c) No direct light is. cast beyond the immediate area of the pool or spa. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff.
::December �11985; §,1 _(part), Ord. 390, eff. November 14, 1997)
10-2:1004 High intensity lighting_prohibited.
Highiniensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide
lighting,..is prohibited. (§ 1 (part), Ord.. 390, eff. November. 14, 1997)
1972490S Outdoor lighting -General
Otitdobr lighting: :should use the minimum number and wattage lights which mill safely illuminate. the,
area. Outdoor light sources shall be shielded so as not to. be directly visible from off-site. No more than
two (2). lights shall be allowed in setback; areas (as defined, in Chapter.2.(Zoning) of the To". of -Los
Altos Hills Municipal Code). Additionat. lighting may beTermitted where it is determined to be necessary
to -safely illumin; afe "the area.'(§ ' 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; § 1 (part), Ord. 390, eff. November
1.4, 1997)
ATTACHMENT 2
LOSAMSEUB
CALIFORNIA
August 24, 2007
Fremont Hills Country Club
12889 Viscaino Place
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: File #149 -07 -CUP
12889 Viscaino, Place
Conditional .Use Permit Amendment
Tremont Hills Country Club:
request for a' Conditional Use Permit- Amendment was approved at the City Council
on-Augus t 7, '2007. Please note the following conditions which. apply to this
a itoval:
pp
..........
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tllo"continuatiqg sof this - Conditional. Use_� Permit shall be - issued to Fremont Hills
Country utr 311:4b for the'property designated a's.Parcel 175-55-46, -12889 Viscaino Place
A. (I7.03 -gross acres):
The -maximum- number of -horses to be kept or maintained. at this facility at any one
time: is -55.
The maximum floor area and development area allowed -under this permit are as
follows
MDA at 212,313 sq. ft.
at19,742, sq.,- ft.: . .....
WA
4 -...:- Mere shall be twenty-four (24) hour supervision of said premises by a competent
attendant' who : is knowledgeable about -horse, care. and authorized tosee that the
conditions of this Use Permit are met.
5., A -Business, License from-Ahe, Town• shall. be required for . the:-boththe country Club
and the stable operationsand shall -be renewed- annually on -January first; . as: long :as
alLcond.itions:of this Use Permit have been met.
6.., Staf : Planning Commission - and -City :Council - shall conduct a. review .-of this
Conditional. Use Permit every. three years -to assure compliance with conditions and
all. conditions shall bel.subject to amendments and/or additional conditions to assure
that the public health, safety and general welfare are protected and that the: objectives
of the General Plan and. -Zoning Ordinance are served,, as deemed necessary -by the
26379 Fremont Road
Los: Altos Hills' Planning Commission and City .Council.
California 54022-
650/941-7.2.22
Fax -650/941-3160
Lands of Fremont Hills Country Club
August 24, 2007
Page 2 of 4
7. All requirements of the Santa Clara County Health Department and Palo Alto Animal
Control shall be complied with throughout the life of thispermit:
a. Drainage from stables, corrals, pens, barns, etc., shall not enter a natural
water course.
b. Animal quarters must be swept clean, sprayed and otherwise kept in a
sanitary manner so as to prevent unnecessary odor, fly breeding and rodent
attraction.
c. Manure shall be disposed of regularly by spreading, collection in an
appropriate bin and/or removal from site at least six times per year. Any
changes to the plan for the maintenance and removal of manure shall be
approved by the Town.
d. The horses shall be moved to an upper corral by November first, and shall
remain there until April first or the end of the rainy season, whichever is later.
e. A shelter shall be constructed for the horses in the upper corral no later than
November 1, 1997. The shelter may be temporary so that it can be removed
during the remainder of the year when the horses are in the lower corral.
f. At such time that the lower corral fencing needs to be repaired or replaced,
the fencing shall be changed so that it all one material (wood is preferred,
and should be treated to prevent horses from chewing on it). No hot wiring is
permitted on the lower corral fencing.
g. The loafing shed in the lower corral shall have rounded corners for the
protection of the horses.
Any new outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department, prior to
installation. There shall be no external lighting, other than that needed for safety or
security. All fixtures shall be adequately shielded to prevent any nuisance to
adjoining property owners. Tennis court lighting is specifically prohibited.
9. All unpaved driveways, parking areas and horse riding areas shall be maintained in a
manner sufficient to control dust to.aaevel compatible with adjoining uses. The same
type of sand material currently utilized in the large ring. off Roble Ladera shall be
used in the smaller ring as well.
10. All functions shall be required to end at 12:00 midnight, except on New Years Eve,
and no amplified sound shall be allowed after 11:30 p.m. Alcohol shall not be served
later than one hour prior to the end of an event.
11. No additional outdoor public address system is permitted. The existing public
address system shall be limited to use at five horse shows per year and may be
operated only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
12. All barn foundations shall have a minimum earth to wood separation of six (6)
inches. Surrounding areas shall be properly graded (or alternate methods used) to
provide drainage away from all structural foundations for a distance of five (5) feet
from the building.
13. Fremont Hills Country Club shall maintain 147 parking spaces (108 in the lower lot
and 39 in the upper lot), shall provide adequate off-street parking for all members and
guests, and shall direct traffic to other facilities if an overflow should occur. The
° Lands of Fremont Hills Country Club
August 24, 2007
Page 3 of 4
Club is required to provide necessary personnel to assure all members and visitors
park .on the premises when, attending swim meets, horse shows or using Club
facilities.
Fremont Hills Country Club shall provide the City Clerk (for distribution to the
Planning Commission and City Council) and the Sheriff with a calendar of events on
a yearly basis. All ,parking shall be, accommodated on site. If not, public parking
areas shall be. used (valet service, shuttle, etc-.). For events that are expected to have
more than 200 persons in attendance at any one time. (a "Special Event'), the
applicant shall submit a written request to the Planning Department at least 60 days
prior to the _ date of the Special Event. The Planning Department shall submit the
request to -the City Council for a review hearing.- Property owners within 500' of the
-premises "shall be notified of the proposed event, and review hearing. A maximum
of one (1) special event shall be permitted during any one (1) calendar year.
14. The maximum. number, of memberships to the Club shall be limited to 500 member
families.
15. If at any time the parking needs of the Club exceed the availability of parking on site,
the Town shall review the permit for further requirements. If it is determined that the
Club needs an expansion of parking :upon the six (6) month review or every. three (3)
year review, the Club shall return to the Planning Commission with a modification
showingenlargement of the parking areas to accommodate additional parking on site.
16. All landscaping on the. premises shall be properly maintained. If any trees need to be
removed, prior approval of the Planning Department is required. Replacement tree(s)
may be required at the discretion of the Planning Director. ` Any planting that is
providing screening, and landscaping in parking lots and on slopes is required to be
replaced if removed for any reason.
17. In the event that the Planning Director believes any of the conditions of this permit
are not satisfied; the Planning Department may cause a noticed public hearing to be
set to review whether Ahe permit should be continued; and upon a showing of
compelling public necessity demonstrated at the noticed public hearing, the Town
may add, amend, or delete conditions and regulations contained in this permit.
18. Monitoring and reporting to. the Town shall be accomplished by the Club for the
stable operation near the creek and shall include an emergency plan. The plan shall
remain on file at FHCC and at the Town. Any amendments to the plan require Town
approval.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
19. Concentration of animal wastes or other nutrients shall be prevented from entering
the creek.
a. No stockpiling of manure shall be done closer than 100' from the creek.
b. The corral adjacent to the creek shall be cleaned out weekly to prevent an
accumulation of animal wastes or other nutrients.
Lands of Fremont Hills Country Club
August 24, 2007
Page 4 of 4
C. The vegetated buffer: strip shall be maintained between the creek and the
- corral to assist in filtering nutrients.
d. Horses shall be moved from the lower paddock in wet weather (from
November first until the end of the rainy season, or April first, whichever
occurs later).
20. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage shall be approved by the
Town Engineering Department. 'No grading shall take place during the grading
moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
21.' The following requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be
complied with:
a. All buildings and their usage shall meet applicable Town, County, and State
fire and life safety regulations.
b. All buildings which presently are protected by fire sprinklers shall have the
State mandated 5 -year inspection by a state licensed fire sprinkler contractor.
Records of the inspections shall remain on the site.
c. Remodeled and/or additions to buildings protected by fire. sprinklers will
require the modification of the existing system(s) to the satisfaction of the
Fire Department.
d. The. shavings bam shall be completely protected by fire sprinklers.
e. A fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the small horse barn, and shall be
inspected and approved by the Fire Department.
f. The fire sprinkler system in the caretaker's unit shall be inspected and
approved by the Fire Department.
g. Weeds on the property shall be cut, disked or removed in the spring (on or
about.March 31) to avoid --a fire danger prior to the start -of fire season.
Please contact us if you have any questions 650-941-7222.
Sincerely,
Debbie Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
ATTACHMENT 3
Impact Report
Proposed Tennis .Court Lighting
Fremont Hills Country Club
June 6, 2013
James 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 Code in which high intensity
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 en'viron'ment or, on-othernearby 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-m-
ost'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.
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
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
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.
Court (across)
+435
+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.
Court (across)
MD
+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
to See Lights
Obstructions Note
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
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.
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).
61
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.
OQFLOFESS/OR Fy
�
�ES 8FN
�:' /
No. 12078
Exp 12-31-13
OF
D
ATTACHMENT 4
oilMei- Wu Acoustics .
Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration
To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club sdomnie@fremonthills.com
From: Jeff Irwin, 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 NoiseOrdinance. 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 5OdBA during day hours (8am =1Opm weekdays, 9am
— 10pm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, lOpm — 9am
weekends).
The country club wishes to -install lighting to :allow later play on 5 of their 10 tennis courts
(courts #4 through #8, 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 Acoustic
3 Twin Dolphin Drive,_Sulie.190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 1
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 /. www.mei-wu.com
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.
Fig
At 4:00pm on Thursday, February 21, 2012; Town of Los Altos Hills staff took sound
measurements along the club's ,northeastem property line -at Roble .Ladera Road. At this
time, they measured a "prevailing" noise level of 55dBA, . with maximum levels reaching
59dBA. Approximately half of the courts were in use at the time. No _ information on the
specific methods used in these measurements was provided 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 players were compared to other sources.
2. Measurement Process
Sound meters 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 asviewed
from nearby roads.
MWA Project 13026' Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
Measurement sets were taken using Norsonic Norl18 (type -1) and Cesva SC160 (type -2)
sound level meters, both calibrated on-site with a Norsonic Norl251 calibrator prior to each
measurement: Each measurement set lasted for 30 -minutes, with each set including the 30 -
minute -averaged third -octave band .levels, and the equivalent' A -weighted sound levels
measured 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 4:15pm and 4:45pm (Station 3).
Measurements with the tennis courts in use were taken on Saturday, May 4, 2013; between
8:50am and 9:20am (Station 1), between 9:50am and 10:20am (Station 2), and between.
10:40am.and 11:10am (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 by 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.
L Station 1
Station 1 baseline measurements were dominated primarily.by traffic noise from I-
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
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727/ www.hiel-wu.com
The 30 -minute -averaged frequency content measured at Station 1 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 2014z — 20 kHz). The
unweighted equivalent levels (Leq) for the measurement remain near or below 50dB,
though the maximum levels at some frequencies reach nearly 70dB. The highest
instantaneous measurements were taken during the passing of road and air traffic, and.
these are the causes of the maximum levels shown.
80
X70
v 60
50
m
40
30
a 20 Lmin
v Lmax
a 10 — Leq
16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz
frequency
Figure 5: Station 1 baseline noise levels over audible frequency range, measured in third -octave 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
0
50
—� 45
v
v
L 40
Leq
'o Lave
`1 35
14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40
time
Figure 6: Station I baseline A -weighted 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 L1 curve represents the level
exceeded during 1% of each measurement period (the approximate maximum), the
L50 curve the level exceeded during 50% of each measurement time (the median
value), and the L99 curve the level exceeded during 99% of each measurement time
(the approximate minimum). The only percentile curves that surpass 50dBA are the
Ll, L5i and L10 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
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 4
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
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
60
55
> 50
m
J
45
H
H
a 40
a
c
0 35
W
30
L1 L5 u0 L50
L90 L95 L99 Leq
14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 .14:35 14:40
time
Figure 7: Station 1 baseline A -weighted percentile measurements over time.
ia. Station 2
Station 2 baseline measurements were dominated by the I-280 traffic, Roble Ladera
Road traffic, and air traffic. Traffic from I-280 was constant, and was very clearly
aud'ble.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
a 90
0 80
m`
70
> 60
ai
m 50
40
H
LLeq
30
20,�
10
0
16 Hz
63 Hz 250 Hz 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 I-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
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
originated from the country club, with the dominant noise sources being Roble
Ladera Road traffic and freeway noise from I-280.
so
Y75
m 70
v
v65
360
v
:3 55
VI
d
6-50
45
0
tn
40
65
i
a
m 60
v
v
d
55
aw
L 50
v
c —
O -
w
45
15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55
time
Figure 9: Station 2 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time.
LI L5 L10 L50
L90 L95 L99 Leq
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.
iii. Station 3
Station 3 measurements showed unweighted sound levels (Figure 11) exceeding 50dB
at low frequencies (I OOHz 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
m 70
60
v
50
40
v 30
CL
20 7Lm
°n 10 - Lmax
0 Leq
16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz
frequency
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 6
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
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 due 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
CL
a
F
0
0
"' 45
70
K
e 65
a
C3
60
16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40
time
Figure 12: Station 3 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time.
L1 L5 L10 L50
L90 L95 L99 Leq
16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40
time
Figure 13: Station 3 baseline A -weighted percentile noise levels overtime.
B. Tennis 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
11:10am (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 I-280, with traffic conditions reasonably
similar to those during the baseline measurements taken on April 29.
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
i. Station 1
Station 1 measurements were dominated by I-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
40
m 70
60 �~
v
a; 50
40
w 30
20 Lmin
10 - Lmax
vi a I - Le
16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz
frequency
Figure 14: Station 1 noise levels with tennis courts, over audible frequency range.
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 overtime. However, the higher
levels measured were due more to increased human and animal activity in the
equestrian area than anything else. Absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above
other ambient noise during this measurement.
60
i
a 55
CO
a
v 50
v
J
C1
7 45
d V
c 40 Leq
'o - - - Lave
Ln 35
8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20
time
Figure 15: Station 1 A -weighted noise levels with tennis courts, over time.
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
70
2
m 60
v
v
3 50
v
a
40
c L1 L5 L10 L50
LC) 30 L90 L95 L99 Leq
8:50 8S5 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20
time
Figure 16: Station 1 A -weighted percentile noise levels with tennis courts, over time.
ii. Station 2
Station 2 measurements- were dominated by -constant I-280 traffic, occasional Roble
Ladera 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.
80
X70
v 60
50
40
30
v
a 20 7Lm
10 - Lmax
o Leq
Ln n
16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz
frequency
Figure 17: Station 2 noise levels with tennis courts, over audible frequency range.
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.
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
60
i
C< 55
v
50
v
5
cu
L 45 v
a Leq
Lave
65 40
9:50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20
time
Figure 18: Station 2 A weighted noise levels with tennis courts, over time.
80
"70
m
v,
Z 60
a�
J
50
N
N
Ul
a40
L1 L5 L10 L50
o L90 L95 L99 Leq
"' 30
950 955 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20
time
Figure 19: Station 2 A -weighted percentile noise levels with tennis courts, over time.
W. Station 3
Station 3 noise levels were again dominated by constant I-280 traffic, periodic Roble
Ladera 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.
80
70
v 60
Z 50
a
40
30
QJN
L 20 -Lmin
10 - Lmax
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.
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 10
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
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
e
0 55
m
50
v
5
W
L 45
c
0
0
Ln 40
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
i
m 60
v
CU
a] 50
N
3
m 40 a`
L1 L5 -- u0 L50
o L90 L95 L99 Leq
Ln 30
10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10
time
Figure 22: Station 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 — lOpm weekdays, 9am — lOpm
weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, lOpm — 9am weekends).
Fremont Hills Country Club will be shutting off the court lights at 10pm 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.
MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 11
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
90
80
r 70
m
a
v
ami 60
a s0
c
'n
40
30
Tabie 1: Summary of 30 -minute -averaged measurements.
Station 1, Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3,
No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full
Figure 23: Summary of 30 -minute -averaged measurements.
A. Current Noise Conditions
--o— Lmax
—• LS
• L5
—`-- L10
—• L50
— • L90
—w— L95
—0— L99
—F Leq
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 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 12
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mel-wu.com
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. 12580 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
Peak Level:
65.5 dBA
Peak Level:
65.2 dBA
90
80
r 70
m
a
v
ami 60
a s0
c
'n
40
30
Tabie 1: Summary of 30 -minute -averaged measurements.
Station 1, Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3,
No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full
Figure 23: Summary of 30 -minute -averaged measurements.
A. Current Noise Conditions
--o— Lmax
—• LS
• L5
—`-- L10
—• L50
— • L90
—w— L95
—0— L99
—F Leq
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 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 12
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mel-wu.com
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
J. 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 club 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 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 13
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
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 Mei Wu Acoustics
3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 14
Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com
ATTACHMENT 5
Brian Froelich
From: Maria Caffey [mariacaffey@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 10:52 AM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: Fremont Hills Tennis Court.Lighting
We cannot tell you how opposed to this we area Having bright lights shine in our home'so a
few people can play tennis would definitely reduce the enjoyment of -the -home we have lived in
for 40 years and reduce its property value. We will -fight this with petitions and courts if
we have to.
By theway, does this -open the'door to anyone else in Los Altos Hills who wants similar -night
time lighting on their baseball fields, -tennis courts, riding stables etc. to have lights?
Thank you for listening,
]ack,and Maria Caffey
27133 Adonna Court"
Los Altos Hills
3
Brian Froelich
From: J. Bower Dj_bower@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 6:21 PM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: Tennis court Lighting at FHCC
Hi, Brian,
My husband, John, and I would like to join your study session on 12/05.
We'll be there at 7:00.
We are members at FHCC.
Joan Bower
Brian Froelich
From: Uday Kurkure [ukurkure@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:41 PM
To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comeast:net; jsmandle@hotmail.com;
richard. partridge@comcast. net; Debbie_ Pedro;, Brian Froelich; Scott Domnie;
lawrence_charles@msn.com
Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Proposed Project Support
Dear LAH Planning Commission Members,
We live in Los Altos Hills at 14197 Wild Plum Lane, Los Altos Hills.
We area family of tennis players: We joined FHCC to play tennis. Due to work schedules,
we rarely get chance to play tennis during sunlight hours. By the time we come home, it is already dark.
Even though we belong to a tennis club, we cannot play tennis at FHCC because the club does not
have lighted courts. Many clubs in the the neighboring towns like Portola Valley or. Palo Alto have lighted
courts.
Please approve FHCC's Tennis Court lighting proposal.
Thanks,
Uday Kurkure
14197 Wild Plum Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Brian Froelich
From: beatrice ruhland [beatricelouiser@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 4:36 PM
To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com;
richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; sdomnie@fremonthills.com;
Larry Russell
Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Proposed Project Support
We are a big family of tennis players and we are all for having lights on the courts at Fremont Hills to allow us
to play in the evenings.
Beatrice Ruhland
Jean -Georges Fritsch
Camille Fritsch
Emilien Fritsch
12562 Corbetta Lane
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
All the best,
Beatrice
Brian Froelich
From: Adele Kellman [arkellman@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 6:39 PM
To: jima.pc@gmaii.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net;.jsmandle@hotmail.com;
richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; Domnie, Scott (FHCC);
Russell, Larry
Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Proposed Project Support
Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Members,
It is our understanding that you are considering the proposed request to light 5 tennis courts at Fremont Hills
Country Club. We are members and enthusiastically support this addition to our club. Our entire family plays
tennis and we would -certainly benefit from the extra hours available to us, particularly in the winter when we
cannot play after 5:00 PM. Additionally, our club would be able to provide more activities for both members
and non-members through clinics and instructional lessons in the evenings.
Night lights would attract more working members to our club. We have know members who have left Fremont
Hills to join both University and Foothill Clubs because they worked and wanted to be able to use the facilities
in the evening. We have other friends who would not consider our club because without lights it did not
accommodate their work schedule in the winter.
We have played tennis at night lit by newly designed lights that emit almost no light outside of the immediate
area. Due to the low elevation of the proposed courts, there would be virtually no affect on the surrounding
homes and area.
Fremont Hills Country Club is a unique club in a beautiful setting. We would like to see more people enjoy the
club and use it more often. We believe this would have the added benefit of increasing the value of the club as
well as property values in the Hills.
We have lived in Los Altos Hills for 17 years and been members of this club for 12 years.
For all of the reasons cited above, we strongly urge you to approve the night lights for Fremont Hills Country
Club. Thank you for your consideration.
Adele and Jeff Kellman
12109 Oak Park Court
Los Altos Hills
Brian Froelich
From: Cate Collings [doccate@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:58 PM
To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com;
richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; sdomnie@fremonthills.com;
lawrence_charles@msn.com
Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Proposed Project Support
Hello,
I am a LAH resident at 27827 Via Feliz and I am in support of lighting for the Fremont Hill
tennis courts. Community recreation of this nature is in keeping with LAH's. emphasis on
outdoor activity and community engagement. A quiet neighborhood can become a stale
neighborhood. By contrast, hearing and seeing others engaged in physical and social activity
has a invigorating effect on everyone in the local vicinity!
Cate Collings
Sent from my iPhone