The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.1ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 24, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 7, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (R -A) AND CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 10, OUTDOOR LIGHTING, AN AMENDMENT TO THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING POLICY AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LANDS OF FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, 12889 VISCAINO PLACE; FILE #11-13-MISC. FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consultant Planner APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Community Development Director V RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Forward a recommendation that, based on the Initial Study, the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration in Attachment #1; and 2. Forward a recommendation that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance to amend the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 10-1.703, 10-2.1002, 10-2.1004 and 10-2.1005, as shown in Attachment #2; and 3. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested amendment to the Outdoor Lighting Policy as shown in Attachment #3; and 4. Forward a recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed amendments to the Conditional Use Permit to allow tennis court lighting on five of the ten existing tennis courts located at the Fremont Hills Country Club, based on the Initial Study, the findings for approval contained in the resolution and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment 41 to the resolution). RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATIVE: As an alternative, the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council deny the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance Amendment. If the Planning Commission recommends denial of the requested ordinance amendment, the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment should also be recommended for denial because it would be not be in compliance with the Municipal Code. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting June 24, 2014 Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND Fremont Hills Country Club (FHCC or 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 first approved by the City Council on December 5, 1957and is the only private social and recreational club located within the Town of Los Altos Hills and is the only parcel within the Town designated in the General Plan as "Private Recreation Area" (RA -PR). On December 5, 2013, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the request by the FHCC to amend the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinance and Outdoor Lighting Policy to allow recreation court lighting on five of their ten tennis courts. At the study session, the Planning Commission had concerns regarding impacts of lighting on surrounding neighbors, increased noise and increased traffic. In addition, the Commission asked staff to explore the idea of a mock-up on the site of the actual lights and to conduct a Town -wide survey to find out if residents saw a need for outdoor lighting of recreational facilities. The Club has provided informational binders that include additional project and lighting details for Planning Commission review (Attachment #12). REQUEST The proposed project would require amendment of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance and the Outdoor Lighting Policy to allow tennis court lighting on properties with the General Plan designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). The project also includes modifications to the Fremont Hills Country Club Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of tennis court lighting on five of the ten existing tennis courts, and to extend the hours of tennis playtime until 10pm. 1) Zoning and Site Development Ordinance Amendment - FHCC is requesting an amendment to the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinance to allow tennis court lighting on properties with the General Plan designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). The proposed amendment would allow tennis court lights to be used between sunset and lOpm. See Attachment #2 for the specific proposed language. 2) Outdoor Lighting Policy — FHCC is also requesting amendment of the Town's Outdoor lighting Policy to allow recreation court lighting on properties with a Staff Report to the Planning Commission Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting June 24, 2014 Page 3 of 7 General Plan designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). Currently, item number 7 in the Outdoor Lighting Policy prohibits high intensity discharge lighting and metal halide lighting on all properties within the Town. See Attachment #3 for specific language changes. 3) Conditional Use Permit Amendment - FHCC is also seeking an amendment to the property's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow recreation court lighting. The current FHCC CUP conditions along with the project specific Site Development Conditions are included in Attachment #5. Currently, condition #8 prohibits any new lighting without prior approval by the Planning Department, and specifically prohibits tennis court lighting. DISCUSSION Following the Planning Commission study session, staff discussed the request to explore the idea of sending out a Town -wide survey to ask residents if recreational lighting would be something they would support. Because the proposed Zoning and Site Development Ordinance amendment only applies to one parcel, the Town's regular practice is to provide notice to all properties within 500 feet of the subject site. Based on this standard practice, staff did not conduct a Town -wide survey. Additionally, FHCC obtained a bid to prepare a lighting mock-up, which was estimated at more than $50,000. Due to the cost of the lighting mock-up, FHCC has prepared a video simulation that will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The remainder of the concerns raised during the study session, including lighting, noise and traffic, are discussed below in detail. Lighting Impacts The applicants submitted a Lighting Impact Report prepared by James R. Benya (Attachment #6). Subsequently, the Town hired ACG Engineers to perform a peer review of the Benya report (Attachment #7). Both Benya and ACG Engineers find that the proposed tennis court lights will not have a significant effect on the surrounding neighbors. The Club site is already developed with 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 five of the existing ten tennis courts. Each of the five courts will have fully shielded, Visionaire Lighting, Advantage ADV -2 tennis court lighting which includes 1,000 -watt metal halide tennis court luminaires mounted at 22 feet above the court surface on poles (see the project plans for the location of the five courts). 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting June 24, 2014 Page 4 of 7 The proposed light fixtures are located at least 120 feet from any property line and at least 325 feet from the nearest residence. These distances contribute to the ability to shield the light source from the neighbors. In addition, the dark court playing surfaces help reduce the light reflection, as does the black tennis court screen -fencing. Nearby homes are all located above the tops of the proposed luminaires so 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 screen -fencing. Views from the south are blocked by topography and the existing equestrian center. A mixture of mature trees block court views from homes to the north. Proposed mitigation measures require that the project limit the tennis court light usage from sunset to l Opm. All lights will be automatically turned off from a master timer at I Opm and courts that are not in active play will have motion sensors to turn the lights off before l Opm if no players are present. . Noise Impacts The applicants submitted a noise assessment report prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics (Attachment #8). The Town employed Charles M. Salter to prepare a peer review (Attachment #9) of the Mei Wu Acoustics report. Both consultants agree that 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. The Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan, Noise Element, indicates that outdoor sports and recreation noise levels should fall below 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL and are "normally acceptable". 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. In addition, the peer review prepared by Charles Salter Associates maintains the same conclusion that noise associated from the tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and should go unnoticed. FHCC has indicated that access to evening play would allow the Club to host USTA (United States Tennis Association) interclub sponsored tennis matches. According to the Fremont Hills Country Club General Manager, most matches have approximately 12 players and will last about 1-2 hours and will occupy approximately 3 to 4 courts. There are no areas with "stadium" seating or viewing for spectators. Traffic Impacts The Town contracted with Hexagon Transportation Consultants to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (Attachment #10) and the applicant prepared a peer review by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated April 21, 2014 (Attachment #11). Both consultants came to the conclusion that the increased traffic as a result of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting June 24, 2014 Page 5 of 7 project would not cause the LOS (Level Of Service) to fall below an acceptable level at any study intersections. Although the two consultants came to the same conclusion with respect to LOS, they identified different numbers of the additional daily trip counts that would be generated by the project. The Hexagon report took a conservative approach, using the tennis court lighting hours of 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm during the winter months. They then applied the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates for tennis clubs (17 trips per hour). It should be noted that Hexagon used 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, although this may not always be the case. Based on this worst-case scenario, Hexagon estimates 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 in the General Plan. Specifically, Hexagon estimated that the project would increase traffic volumes 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. TJKM Transportation Consultants, the applicant's consultant, concluded that sunrise and sunset data for the San Francisco area indicates that it does not get dark in Los Altos Hills until about 5 PM (worst-case in early December) and that the tennis court lights would not be turned on until after that time. Therefore, TJKM concluded that during the worst- case month of December, the project would use lights for only 5 hours, not 6 hours as assumed by Hexagon, and therefore the project would generate 85 new daily trips, rather than 102 daily trips estimated by Hexagon (TJKM used the same trip generation number of 17 trips per hour). As stated above, however, even if the project would generate 102 daily trips, the project would not cause the LOS to fall below an acceptable level at any of the studied intersections. Zoning and Site Development Ordinance Amendment - Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 7, Section 10-1.703 and the Town of Los Altos Staff Report to the Planning Commission Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting June 24, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Hills Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 10-2.1002, 10-2.1004 and 10-2.1005 (Attachment #2). Currently, the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code does not permit lighting of tennis courts and other recreational courts within the Town. A Zoning and Site Development Ordinance amendment is proposed with this project to 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 allows for USTA (United States Tennis Association) interclub sponsored tennis matches. 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 the Initial Study, any adverse effects of the project can be mitigated such that adjacent neighbors would be not negatively affected. Outdoor Lighting Policy Amendment Approval of this project would also require amendment of the Outdoor Lighting Policy to be consistent with the changes to the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance. Only one change is required to Policy #7 (see Attachment #3), which makes an exception for high intensity discharge lighting and metal halide lighting allowed on properties which have a General Plan designation of Public Recreation Area (RA -PR). 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 of the proposal. (Attachment #12). Public Comment As of the writing of this report, Town staff has received 14 emails and 1 letter, 13 in support and 2 in opposition. (Attachment #13). Environmental Review (CEQA) In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. The review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration began on June 4, 2014 and ends on June 24, 2014. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting June 24, 2014 Page 7 of 7 The Mitigated Negative Declaration must be adopted by the City Council before approving the project. In order to recommend adoption, the Commission must find that all potential significant environmental effects are addressed through the proposed mitigation measures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study 2. Draft Zoning and Site Development Ordinance Amendment 3. Draft Outdoor Lighting Policy Amendment 4. Draft Resolution for Conditional Use Permit Amendment 5. Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit (included as Attachment 1 to the draft resolution) 6. 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. 7. ACG Engineers, Peer review, dated April 29, 2014. 8. Mei Wu Acoustics, Noise Impact report, dated June 6, 2013, March 17, 2014 and May 30, 2014. 9. Charles M. Salter, Peer review, dated February 13, 2014 and June 2, 2014. 10. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Traffic Analysis, dated May 6, 2014. 11. TJKM Transportation Consultants, Peer review, dated April 21, 2014. 12. Project informational binders supplied by Applicant (Planning Commission only) 13. Public Comments (chronological order received) 14. Project plans ATTACHMENT I TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: PREPARED BY: NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: LOCATION OF PROJECT: Fremont Hills Country Club, Tennis Court Lighting project, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment. Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department. 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fremont Hills Country Club 12889 Viscaino Place Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-2519 12889 Viscaino Place Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 APN#175-55-049 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. FINDING: The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study, has determined that the project, as mitigated, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNICIANT EFFECTS: 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. Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project June 4, 2014 Page 2 of 2 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. Debbie Pedro, AICP, Community Development Director TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Circulated: June 4, 2014 to June 24, 2014 Adopted on: Date INITIAL STUDY i10_IOMW Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Fremont Hills 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 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 38 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. 6n 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 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 38 Environmental Checklist Form 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. 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. 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) 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 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 38 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 CountryClub 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 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 38 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 U. Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ . Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation Transportation/Traffic LlUtilities /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. 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. 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 38 ❑ 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 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 38 I. AESTHETICS-- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic . resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 Hillsis 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. 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 38 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. 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 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 38 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland L3 Ll Ll Q 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 Potentially . _ Less Than Significant with,. Less Than ,. nificant SigNo Mitigation Significant- Impact Impact Incorporation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland L3 Ll Ll Q 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 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 38 - - Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact -Impact Incorporation , Impact III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 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 38 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 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 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, such as a tree preservation. policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than , . . Potentially - Less Than Significant with Significant . Mitigation Significant. No Impact Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ CJ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 0 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 38 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 adverse.effect on Biologic Resources. Biological Resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,5,6,10,17 within the project area and therefore would not have an Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on 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 38 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 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant MitigationImpact, Significant No 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 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 38 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 Town of Los A1tos.Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4, 2014 Page 15 of 38 Less Than Potentially .Less Than Significant with Significant Significant ,: No Impact Mitigation .Impact . Impact Incorporation .; VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential 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 substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including. liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 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 property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ : ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 38 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 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 38 Than Potentially LLess Than Significant with Significant Significant.. No Impact Mitigation Impact.. Impact - - Incorporation= - VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 0 ❑ ❑ 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? I1 R10111M] IOU 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 negligiblelevel of increased emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions. A% 1 WKV1_(IN ereTL' Sources: 9 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 38 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Potentially Less.Than Signifcani with Less Than a) Create a significant hazard to the public or Significant Rlitibation Significant'. No Impact Impact Incorporation . Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jj involving the release of hazardous materials . into the environment? c) Emit hazardous . emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 Ll Ll Ll public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety L3 LlQ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [✓1 to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 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 38 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 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 38 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 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Q stormwater drainage systems or provide Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Impact Incorporation Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q flows? 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 38 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 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 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 38 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 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less,Than Significant Mitigation Significant : No Impact Impact Incorporation Impact 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 Town of Los A1tos.Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4,2014 Page 23 of 38 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 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 38 M. 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 Potentially ._ Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant - Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact - p Incorporation Impact p M. 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 Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Hills Country Club DRAFT Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Amendment/ Conditional Use Permit Amendment June 4, 2.014 Page 25 of 38 XII. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of Potentially Less Than Significant with Les's- Than noise levels in excess of standards established Significant Mitigation Significant'- No Impact - - Im act p Incorporation :. Im act P 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 groundbome 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 ❑ L)Q 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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. 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 38 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 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 38 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with S�gn�ficant Significant No Impact gation IVLh Itnpact 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 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 38 ' Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Q Police protection? Significant Mitigation Significant ; No Impact Schools? Impact =Incorporation Impact . Q 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 governmentalfacilities, the 0 ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ [✓( 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 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 38 :Less Than Potentially Less Than 'Significant with Significant Significant No hnpact Mitigation 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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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 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 38 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 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 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 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? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than o ❑ Significant 1�'Iitigation Significant No:Impact ❑ Impact p Incorporation Impact p ❑ 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 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 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 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? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q o ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 38 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, 91 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 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 38 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. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,3,5,25,26 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 38 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with Significant Significant,:-,. No Impact IVlitigation 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. 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 38 MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,3,15 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 38 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 toeliminate a plant or animal , community, reduce the number .or restrict the range of a rare or endangeredplant 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 Potentially Less Than Significant with' Less Than Mitigation Significant -No-Impact ' Impact Incorporation Impact 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 toeliminate a plant or animal , community, reduce the number .or restrict the range of a rare or endangeredplant 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 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 38 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 B-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. 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 38 EXHIBIT 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. 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 38 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. EXHIBIT A 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 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. 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 wil 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 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 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. Wu 79w5- 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). 5 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. OQVOFESSIO,�\ �S R e4 � m No. 12078 Exp 12-31-13 � ��FCTRIGP \Q' \OF QA.0@0�5V 39 BENYA BURNETT CONSULTANCY 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 toned, neutral, or cool colored. 15-60 Full Sized Fluorescent White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored. 40-110 Light Emitting Diode White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 25-100 Metal Halide White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 50-120 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 1/2 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 BENYA BURNETT CONSULTANCY FORMERLY BENYA LIGHTING DESIGN 161 2 OLYMPIC DRIVE DAVIS, CA 9561 6.6663 WWW.BENYABURNETT.COM PAGE 2 OF 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.xls 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. 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 pQROFESS/N O� rM A No. 12078 Exp 12-31-15 FCTRJGV- �� OF CALIFO9 t t!ISIONAIRE LIGNTING Performance In A Whole New Light 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 high performance fixture designed specifically for tennis with up to triple the light compared to other 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 VISION T" 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-FRIENDLYFULLCUTOFF 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 25% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 450 watt Advantage fixtures offer improved light and 55% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures F- 2 (D w S O Z F- Z D O N N CL O O O w J O 2 F- J 00 N Z cW G J O O O co F- 2 (D LU 2 (D Z H Z D O 2 N N d O rn n w J O d r U J 00 LL 0 U J J 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. 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 Advantage Tennis Court Fixture. Our light levels more than tripled, increasing from 30 to 45 foot candles to 180 foot candles at the net, 177 at the service line, and 129 foot candles behind the base line after the new fixtures were installed. Our members and instructors are ecstatic with our lighting upgrade. I know cc that the level of play and fun at our club U N will increase with these new fixtures" z z w W Kim Perino, Director of Tennis Riviera Tennis Club, Pacific Palisades, CA • The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design inspired by the sleek styling of a European sports car. The new patent -pending Vision T"" Tennis Court Reflector System is unlike any other, providing more light per watt than ever before. The flat lens, vertical lamp, IES full cutoff luminaire is Dark Sky certified to restrict light trespass, glare and light pollution for neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. The low profile, aerodynamic -shaped housing is available with several different, unique. mounting arms for tennis applications. A durable polyester powder coat finish is a variety of colors will compliment any sports facility. Computerized precision machinery, quality materials, and silicone Basket- ing ensure manufacturing to the highest industry standards. Model No. Optics ADV Source MH, PS ❑ 450 (450) (M) (P) ❑ ADV -2 ❑ Tennis Flat Glass (T4T) Wattage Source Wattage ❑ 400 (400) Source MH, PS ❑ 450 (450) (M) (P) ❑ 750 Q50) 13 13❑ 875 (875) (BZ) ❑ 1000 (1000) MH - Metal Halide 'Reduced Envelope PS - Pulse Start Metal Halide Lamp on 1000w (BlO ---------- 1 c I I I I I LJ I C Max. Watt Lbs ADV -2 1 2.8 I 30" 1 20.5" The Advantage fixture's unique, patent -pending Tennis Court reflector is designed specifically for today's levels of play and is the ideal fixture for tennis clubs, public parks, universities, schools, and residential courts. With the option of higher light levels or lower energy costs this industry-leading fixture offers substantial advantages over traditional lighting systems. The Advantage is available with the new Pulse Start Metal Halide lamp in 1000 or 875 watts; as well as the latest energy saving 750, 450, and 400 watt lamps. Utilizing the latest in techology Pulse Start Metal Halide lamps provide more light per watt over a longer period of time, better color consistency, and smooth, even light for any court facility. Voltage Mounting Finish ❑ Slip Fit Arm ❑ Bronze ❑ 480 (5) (SFA) (BZ) ❑ M.Tap 'Consult factory for ❑ Black bolt -on and davit arms (BlO (s) ❑ White (WH) C3Green (GN) Options ❑ Back Shield (BS) ❑ 4 -Sided Shield (4SS) �4FT 4FT 4FT--I -130 EPA: 1.5 EPA. 2.6 TNS 100-S 1 TNS 100-D2 TNS100 Tennis Court mounting arm is constructed of 1%" x 3" rect- angular steel tubing. This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon (or pole) sizes: 3%"0, 4"0, & 4'/2"0. TNS100 is available in the ❑ TNS100 following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 180°, Triple 901, Triple 1200, and Quad. 4FT TNS101-S1 4FT Pole or ❑ Single (S1) ❑ 3-'/2" dia. (3.5) ❑ Bronze (BZ) ❑ Double (D2) ❑ 4" dia. (4) ❑ Black (BK) ❑ Triple 90° (T9) ❑ 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) ❑ White (WH) ❑ Triple 120° (T1) ❑ Green (GN) ❑ Quad (QD) ❑ Custom (CC) 4FT EPA. 2.2 TNS 101-D2 Model No. I Configuration I Pole or Tenon Size I 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, 3'/"0, 4"0, & 4'/"0. TNS101 ❑ TNS101 is available in the following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1801, Triple 901, Triple 120°, and Quad. ❑ Single (S1) ❑ 3" dia. (3) ❑ Bronze (BZ) ❑ Double (D2) ❑ 3-%" dia. (3.5) ❑ Black (BK) ❑ Triple 90° (T9) 1 ❑ 4" dia. (4) ❑ White (WH) 1 ❑ Triple 120° (T1) ❑ 4-%" dia. (4.5) ❑ Green (GN) ❑ Quad (QD) ❑ Custom (CC) 4FT �I � 4FT 4FT -- 18" PW2'EPA 2.2 EPA: 3.8 - TNS 102-S 1 TNS 102-D2 Specifications Ordering TNS102 Tennis Court Theme mounting arm is constructed of 1Y2" 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 ❑ TNS102 ❑ Single (S1) ❑ 3-'/2" dia. (3.5) ❑ Bronze (BZ) (or pole) sizes: 3'/2"0, 4"0, & 4'/2"0. TNS102 is available in the fol- ❑ Double (D2) ❑ 4" dia. (4) ❑ Black (BK) lowing pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1800, Triple 900, ❑ Triple 901 (T9) ❑ 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) ❑ White (WH) 0 Triple 1200 (T1) ❑ Green (GN) Triple 1201, and Quad. ❑ quad (QD) 13 Custom (CC) ViSIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance in A Whole New Light 19645 Rancho Way Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220 Tel: 310.512.6480 or 877.977.5483 Fax: 310.512.6486 www.visionairelighting.com/tennis or visit us on our main website at www.visionairelighting.com Number .l..'. c @us• v LISTED ADV -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. VisionTm 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. ADV -2 Tennis 400 PS 120 Slip Fit Arm Tennis Green Flat Glass (T4T) (400) (1) (SFA) (GN) 450 PS 208 Davit Arm Black Reduced envelope (z) (DA) (BK) (450) 240 Adjustable Knuckle 750 PS (3) Mount (750) (KM) 277 875 PS (4) (875) 480 1000 MH, PS (5) (1000) (M), (P) M -Tap 'Multi -Tap ballast wired at 271 V unless specified (6) 347 (8) MH - Metal Halide PS Pulse Start Metal Halide VISIONAIRE LIGHTING Pfr/ormance In A Whole New Light 4 -Sided Light Shield (ass) Back Shield (BS) Bird -B -Gone (BBG) 'Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket. See Mounting Arms section. 19645 Rancho Way • Rancho Dominguez. CA • 90220 Tel (310) 512-6480 • Fax (310) 512-6486 www.visionairelightng.com 06.08.11 Housing • All housings are manufactured using technologically advanced computer numerical control (CNC) machinery. Precision sheared and formed, corrosion -resistant aluminum. • The computerized CNC machinery enables all Advantage housings to be constructed quickly, efficiently and in adherence with exacting ISO 9002 standards. All external hardware is stainless steel. Lens and Door Assembly • Removable door assembly is CNC precision, sheared and formed from corrosion -resistant aluminum, with captive stainless steel fasteners. • The lens is a tempered, clear safety glass, secured by galvanized lens retainers, and sealed with silicone gasketing to provide complete weather and insect protection. Vision TM Optical System • Reflector is precision CNC cut and bent, multifaceted, segmented, highly efficient, 95% reflective aluminum. Available in a specialized T4T tennis reflector. • Tool -less reflector entry. Quali-Guard" Finish • The finish is a Quali-Guard' textured, chemically pretreated through a multiple stage washer, electrostatically applied, thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum of 3-5 millimeter thickness. Finish is oven -baked at 400 'F to promote maximum adherence and finish hardness. All finishes are available in standard and custom colors. • Finish is guaranteed for two (2) years. EPA 1 2 TNS100-S1 Slip fits over 23/J�' Fixture with Arm I Ill ADV -2 Ito Mounting • Slip fit arm mount (SFA), davit arm (DA) or knuckle mount (KM) available. • Please see Mounting Arms section for a choice of tennis davit arm options, brackets and accessories. Electrical Assembly • All ballasts are premium -grade HPF regulating autotransformers. Ballast is capable of providing consistent lamp starting down to -20'F. Available in. • Metal Halide (MH) • Pulse Start Metal Halide (PS) • Socket is glazed porcelain medium or mogul base with nickel - plated contacts, rated at 4 kV (5 kV for 1000 watt) and 600 V. Options • 4 -Sided light shield • Back shield • Bird -B -Gone Please consult factory for custom options. Listings • Advantage is `®•listed, suitable for wet locations. • Dark -Sky Friendly', full cutoff certified by the International Dark -Sky Association. • ®9A compliant. • Powder Coated Tough T11 • VisionT" Reflector System (U.S. Patent No. 7,213,948). EPA. 2 4 t - TNS100-D2 TNS103 Davit Arm 'Tennis mounting arms slip -ft 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. SINGLE COURT 60X120 19.4 40.7 '58, 71.2*167.3 70.6 •69.4 6-48 71,0 •59.3 43.6 21. 31.5 70. 4 72.0 34. 37.9 71. •115 •11 •131 *12 •124 *134 •111 •11 7 75.1 41. 37.9 71. •115 •11 •131 *12 *124 •134 •111 •11 7 75.2 41. 31.4 69. 2 71.8 34. •19.4 40.5 58.3 71.0 67.1 70.4 69.2 67.6' .' 1.2 59.1 43.4 21. I-24Ft +--24Ft - i - ( 19645 Rancho Way • Rancho Dominguez, CA • 90220 � Tel (310) 512-6480 • Fax: (310) 512-6486 \ EK W "'1,T-JUWF4_-A W www.vWonairelghbng.com April 29, 2014 Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills, California englimseraq MCD 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. J 447 Sutter Street The Dark Sky requirements are fully covered on the report under the 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 Page 2 Regarding: Fremont Hills Country Club - Tennis Court Lighting - Peer Review Los Altos Hills, CA ��rr��11 We agree with lighting fixture selection and we have found it suitable for C�nQJ�nee0's9 the application. Mc. 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, -A---- ' 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 EXHIBIT C lllfk Me! Wu Acoustics NPExperts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club sclomnie@fremonthills.com From: Jeff Irwin, Mei Wu Acoustics jeffrey.irwin@mei-wu.com Mei Wu, Mei Wu Acoustics meiwu@mei-♦vu.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 50dBA during day hours (8am — I Opm weekdays, 9am - Wpm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, IOpm — 9am weekends). .) anc surrouic.ing areas The country club wishes to install lighting to allow later play on 5 of their 10 tennis courts (courts 44 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 Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 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. Fi•-ure 2. Court 0 courts are to be lighted At 4:00pin on Thuisday. February 21, 2012; Town of Los Altos Hills staff took sound measurements along the club's northeastern property line at Roble Ladera Road. At this time, they measui ed a "prevailing" noise level of 55dBA, with maximum levels reaching 59dBA. Approximately hal; 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 sourr..es were present at the time, nor is it known what the specific noise contributions of the plaves 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 thL, north, east, and south sides of the courts. Station 1 was located on the property fine 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. Figure 3: 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 (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- 7tinute-averaged third -octave band levels, and the equivalent A -weighted sound levels measured over time. Tinie data was recorded once per minute, with each data point repr;.scnting sound levels integrated over one -minute periods. Baseline measui emenis (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 4:15ptn and 4:45pm (Station 3). Measurements with the tennis courts in use were taken on Saturday, May 4, 2013; between 8:50arn aad 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 I 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 4:15prn and 4:45pm (Station 3). None of the tennis courts were in use during the first two sets, and one court (75) 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. i. '5tcaion 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 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 s70 e60 50 — —� ma \ 40 30 m 20 - L min Lma: '0 10 - Leq u, 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 -agave 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 be?ovu 50dBA, and result in a 30 -minute average of 46.2dBA. 55 s mC SO v J 45 a �J a` 40 - Leq 'o Lave 35 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Fieure 6. Station I baseline A-%ceighted 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 LI curve represents the level exceeded during 1% of each measurement period (tile approximate maximum), the L50 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 LI, L5, 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 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 a 55 > 50 m J 45 c 40 v c 0 35 30 4---... Ll L5 - -- -- L10 L50 L90 -- L95 -- - L99 ----- Leq 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time figure 7: Station I baseline A -weighted percentile measurements over time. !l. Slalion 2 Statim 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 audible during the entire 30 -minutes measurement time. The svvimming 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 l ^ 80 1 z70 m 60 50 40 30 — Lmin c 20 Lmax S 10 -- Leq �- 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. 80 V5 0 70 v 65 -'+ 60 v 55 N d tx 50 c C 45 t n 40 Ir 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Figure 10: St: tion 2 baseline A -weighted percentile noise levels over time 65 0 60 -a v w 55 - — Leq o Lave 45 `-- -- r ------ --- - :--- 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Fi3ure 9: Station 2 baseline A-%Neighted noise levels over time. Ll L5 -- -- L10 L50 L90 --- — L95 L99 ---- Leq Station 3 measurements showed unweighted sound levels (Figure 1 1) 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 8OdB at some frequencies. 90 80 CO 70 a 60 J So N 40 v 30 a 20 — Lmin ° 10 — Lmax 0 — Leq 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency MWA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 6 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.nnei-wu.cotn 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 1-280 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 a CO E 55 a; a V 50 V a` v c 0 45 70 65 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 12: Station 3 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time. CO 60 u U / v55 All a 50 45 — /LS LS --- -- L10 L50 40 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 1 1:10am (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 IOOHz, with remaining levels at or below 50dB. Maximum levels reached nearly 80dB, but these high measurements were due to the passing street traffic. _ 90 e 80 C; 70 a - 60 J 50 40 a 30 20 Lmin c'o 10 Lmax 0 -- Leg --T -'----r - r ---'-r- 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz Frequency Fi_ure 14: Station I noise levels with 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 in the equestrian area than anything else. Absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above other ambient noise during this measurement. 60 a d 55 Z 50 5 45 N 01 c 40 -- Leg o Lave 35 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 15. Station 1 A -weighted 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 70 N C< 60 v CU 50 m a` 40 z Ll LS --- — L10 150 c o L90 l95 L99LT eq 0 30 r- 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 16: Station I A -Freighted percentile noise levels with tennis courts, over time. Y . 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. so a70 do 60 50 -- 340 —� 30 N d a 20 -- Lmin 10 - — Lmax .°— Leq n 0 ------T-- — ---------r----r---- — r- 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure 17: Station 2 noise levels wth tennis coots, 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 i ss 50 I' / N L 45 a c � Lave v0� 40 -----r----r---r- 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 n 70 'C ECJ 7 so N a` 40 Ll L5 - — L10 L50 0 L90 L95 — -- L99 Leq 30 950 9:55 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. Station 3 noise levels were again dominated by constant 1-280 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. so 1 70 m60 50 —1� J 40 „ 30 M a 20 — Lmin C 10 — Lmax Leq 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 frequenc} 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 / vjww.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 55 so W L 45 V r c "' 40 -- . — Leq Lave 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 r 60 50 ` 40 — Ll 1.5 -- L10 --- l50 'o 30 L90 - --- - L95 - L99 —'— Leq ---r— ---- ti --- 10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time fieure 22: station 2 A-%vei6hted percentile noise levels % ith tennis courts, over time. 4. Conclusions Section 5-2.02 of the "Town of Los Altos (-]ills Noise Ordinance states that noise from `persons" must not exceed 50dBA during day hours (8am — IOpm weekdays, 9am — 10pm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (IOpm — 8am weekdays, IOpm — 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 EO 70 m a m c'e EO Table l: Summary of 30 -minute -averaged measurements. 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 Figure 23 Summar of 3o -minute -averaged measurements. A. CUITent Noise Conditions —� Lmax —0 LI �— L5 L10 --1— L50 �— L90 — t— L95 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 1-280, 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.mei-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 EO 70 m a m c'e EO Table l: Summary of 30 -minute -averaged measurements. 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 Figure 23 Summar of 3o -minute -averaged measurements. A. CUITent Noise Conditions —� Lmax —0 LI �— L5 L10 --1— L50 �— L90 — t— L95 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 1-280, 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.mei-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 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. H. 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 (10mph 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.mel-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 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 14 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 1 www.mel-wu.com MWO Mei 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 jV5VA 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 limes are not relevant to the primacy goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended hours linto the night[ " Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quanth existing ambient noise levels during the hours of interest (e.g. 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). rLleasure one fidl week to capture the variation benween 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 I 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, nor does the Club anticipate having such events in the future. In fact, to assure that (best 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 of pcople. 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 nigbt" MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 #2 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-time 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 larger 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 club 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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. Jn 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 Bills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project. Feel free to contact Mei Wu Acoustics with any questions, comments, or concerns regarding our report. MWA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 La, — 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 Ll and L2 include all noise (ambient and tennis). • The calculated level LQ 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. Ll = 10loglo (riolo + n11010) L2 = 1010910 (1010 + n210i ) Therefore, the total tennis noise level LT at a particular location, due to n players on the courts, is given by the following. n LZ 1 s LT = 10 loglo nl(1010 — —1010) n2 — r r MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 1-280 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 of measurement, 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com MWOMei Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club CC: Larry Russell, Fremont Hills Country Club From: Gabriel Messingher, Mei Wu Acoustics Jeff Irwin, Mei Wu Acoustics Mei Wu, Mei Wu Acoustics Date: May 30, 2014 sdomnie@fremonthills.com lawrence_charles@msn.com gabriel@mei-wu.com jeff@mei-wu.com meiwu@mei-wu.com 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 Nor118 type -1 precision sound level meter, calibrated on-site with a Norsonic Norl251 calibrator. n 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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 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 17`h, 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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com EXHIBIT D (-harles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 13 February 2014 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Audiovisual Son Francisco, CA Telecommunications Cynthia Richardson 94104 Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security crichardsonCa losaltoshills.ca.gov F 415.397.0454 www.crosciter.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M. Salter, PE CSA Project: 14-0053 David R. Schwirxxt FRES Eric L. Broadhurst, PE Dear Cynthia: Philip N. Sanders, LEED AP Thomas A. Schindler, PE We have completed our peer review of the acoustical study prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics (MWA). The Anthony P. Nash, PE Cristino L. Miyor subject study was to evaluate the potential impact to neighbors resulting from extended hours of Jason R. Duty, PE tennis play at night made possible by a new lighting system. This letter summarizes our comments on Durand R. Begault, PhD, FAES the MWA analysis for the subject project. Joseph G. D'Angelo Thomas J. Corbett, CTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eric A. Yee Joshua M. Roper, PE, LEED AP The MWA report does not adequately address the acoustical impact for the following reasons: Peter K. Hoist, PE, LEED AP Ethan C. Salter, PE, LEED AP i Thomas D. Keller, CDT Existing nighttime noise levels were not presented ; Craig L. talion, RCDD . - ' Noise frorr tenrils advlty Was not presented Lloyd B.Ranola The study does not address noise from possible worst-case scenarios Alexander K Salter, PE ' Jeremy L. Decker, PE REPORT EXCEPTIONS TAKEN Rob Hammond- PSP, NICET III Michael S. Chore Andrew J. McKee 1. Ambient Noise Measurements — The MWA report sites noise measurements between 8:50 a.m. to Paul R. Billings 11:50 a.m. and again between 2:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. These measurement times are not relevant Valerie C. Smith to the primary goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended Erika A. Frederick hours [into the night]." Benjamin D. Piper eth ElisabbS. Kelson Eli Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quantify existing ambient noise -levels sheth Harrison JouBrian 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 Shauna M Sullivan variation between weekday nights and weekend nights. Amanda G. Higbie Ryon G. Raskop, LEED AP 2, Tennis Activity Noise Measurements — Noise from tennis activity was not measured. The MWA Diego Hernandez report attempts to measure tennis activity noise at the property lines. However, at Station 1, Ryon A. Schofield "absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above the other ambient noise." At Station 2, Jamal Kinon Brian J. Good "measurements were dominated by constant I-280 traffic." And at Station 3 "were again Heather A. Salter dominated by constant I-280 traffic." Dee E Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Recommendation — Measure tennis activity noise, compare these noise levels with the measured Marva De Vear - Noordzee nighttime noise levels to assess noise ordinance compliance, predict audibility and annoyance, Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmar 3. Potential Noise Impact — The MWA report only measures real-time use of the tennis courts for 6 to Jennssor G. Cortez oclSusanI- Lonergan 8 courts of singles tennis. The number of tennis players could more than double at any given time. Courtney H. Vineys Erin D. Gorton Megan C. Santos Fremont Tennis Club Peer Review 13 February 2014 Acoustical Consulting 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. cl��q ' Eric A. Yee Principal Consultant 201402-10 Fremont Tennis Cub Peer Review EAY/eay Acoustics AudioYisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 www.crosalter.com Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 2 June 2014 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Audiovisual San Francisco, CA Telecommunications Cynthia Richardson 94104 Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security crichardson(ablosaltoshills.ca.gov F 415.397.0454 www.crosolter.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M. Salter, PE CSA Project: 14-0053 David R Schwind FAES Eric 1. Broadhurst, PE Dear Cynthia: Philip N. Sanders, LEED AP Thomas A. Schindler, PE Anthony P. Nash, PE The most recent acoustical study from Mei Wu Acoustics measured the ambient noise between the Cristino L. Miyar hours of 8:00 pm and 8:30 pm at the residences closest to the tennis club. The background noise Josan R_ Duty, PE ranges from 51-52 dBA. Durand R. Begauit, PhD, FAES Joseph G. D -Angelo Based on other tennis court studies we have performed, the average noise level from a singles match Thomas J. Corbett, CTS on one tennis court is 54 dBA when measured 50 feet from the court side line. The nearest neighbors A Eric A. Yee Joshua M.Roper, PE, AP are almost 500 feet from the tennis courts. At this distance, we calculate the noise from a single match Peter K. Hoist, 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. Thomas D. Keller, CDT Craig L. Gilson, RCDD If all ten courts were occupied simultaneously, the worst-case average noise would increase by 10 Lloyd B.Ranola decibels to 44 dBA when measured at the nearest property line. This assumes all people are playing at Alexander K Salter, PE once. Even under these conditions the tennis noise level is 6 decibels below the existingnighttime Jeremy L. Decker, PE g Rob Hammond, PSP, NICET III background noise. At these noise levels tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and unless a Michael S. Chore person was specifically listening for tennis activity, these noises should go unnoticed. Andrew J. McKee Paul R. Billings Human voices are often the loudest source of noise during a tennis matching. Shouting and emotional Valerie C. Smith outbursts could be audible even at 500 feet. In our experience, the noise from tennis balls and shoes Erika A, Frederick squeaks is not nearly as offensive as coarse or rude language. The club should encourage good Benjamin D. Piper Elisabeth S. Kolson sportsman behavior using signage and friendly staff reminders of residences. Joshua J. Harrison Brian C. Wourms This concludes our peer review for the subject project. Should you have any questions, please give us Shauna M Sullivan a call. Amanda G. Higbie Ryan G. Raskop, LEED AP Sincerely, Diego Hernandez Ryan A. Schofield Jamal Kinan CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian J. Good Heather A. Salter Doo I- Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Eric A. Yee Marva DoVeor- Noordzee Principal Consultant Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmer Jodessa G. Cortez 2014-02-10 Fremont Tennis Cub Peer Review Susan E. lonergan EAY/eay Courtney H. Vmeys Erin D. Gorton Megan C. Santos EXHIBIT E n � hh..A HEXAGON TPANSPOPTATION 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, 1"nc. has compleied'this iraffic analysis for tfie 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. 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. L Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study 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. 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 ® n U liewoo 1fdnspoitdtioo (onsUitdots. Inc. Page 12 1-, 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 Proiect Trip Generation Estimates Tennis Courts /a/ 3.35 17 Notes: /a/ Tennis Court rates based on ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, average rates, for Raquet/T'ennis 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 10'h 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. uPCHoon f rdnspoution (onsultdots. Inc. Page 1 3 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study a Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road. The counts show 135 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 t_t-�' 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. e i Conclusion Based on the analysis for the tennis court lighting project at the Fremont Hills Country Club, the project would generate up to 17 new trips per hour when the lights were on. This calculates to 102 new daily 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 e Daily Traffic Volumes 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 r .1 u h exd900 TIMSPONtlO0 000SURNS. Inc. Page 1 4 L Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Table 3 Table 4 lu HtxdQml Tieasoolt o (awi im lot Page 1 5 Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Analysis LEGEND ® = Project Site Location = Study Segment ,. {HEXAGON Figure 1 Site Location and Study Segments NORTH s� 5 Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Analysis LEGEND -=Project Site Location = Study Segment xx(xx)= ADT(Hourly Trips) Figure 2Project Trip Distribution and Assignment H UMON 1 NORTH sa. EXHIBIT F kNqVision That Moves Your Community Transportation Consultants April 21, 2014 Scott Domnie General Manager Fremont Hills Country Club 12889 Viscaino Place Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Via Email only: sdomnie .fremonthills.com Subject: Peer Review of Hexagon Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Altos Hills Dear Mr. Domnie: i. ' TJKM Transportation Consultants has performed this peer review of the Traffic Analysis for the 1 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 es - mating,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 gygrestimation of the additional traffic that would result with the project, as described below. C;-•,; r, : '1-1n; Significant-;Overstater ant of Traffic Added with Project tVumber`oj,Ad itfonal Hours During Winter Months The TIA assumes that with the proposed addition of recreation court lighting at five of the Club's e i ting ;tennis,courts, playing hQu,s_wowld.be�extended-to,1.0,00. pa�.,thfoughout the;year,•Instead of ending when,darlmess.ardYes m xhe;eyening. underi,the existing conditjons. 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 Pleasanton, CA 9458e -179e TJKM. independently reviewed,data. for. Los. Altos.H111s 925.463.0611 on sunset times throughout the year. apd. 925.463.3690 fax found shat the,earliest,sunset.time.was 4:5,1 p.m. which occurs fir m November 3p�ahrough Fresno December, low, Under typicaI,conditipnsj,,suT1cient light remains for..at,jeast.l0 to 1.5,;minutes 516 W. Shaw Avenue after: sunset to continue. playing:tennis,,.whlch extends existing court,use, until,.a.feyy.,minutes;after suite j00 S.O,Q; mon the:earliestaunsetda s in;Qecember... ,Staff at Fremont Hills.. Coun Fresno, ca P Y try,C:lyb. has 93704.2515 confirmed that. tennis play, typically continues. past S 00,p.m. at thattime of .year.... This means: that 559325.7530 559.221A940fax tennis Qw,evmembers. currently leave after 5:00 p.m. on the earliest sunset days in December. Sacramento Her-,ahe Tss lA.aurngs that.tennis members.,cur�,eptly,leaye,before 5:00 p.m. during December 980 Ninth Street and,January. . 16th Floor Sacramento. CA 95814-2736 The' TIA arso;assumes that with the aiidition'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 Mills: CountryClub states that tennis. players.typically.arrive no; more than I Om mutes ahead. -of,_, :, 1400 N. Dutton Avenue Suite 2l their start.of play. Based on the information presented in the prevlous;paragraph, thpmew, Santa Rosa, CA extended hours of play with the addition of lights would start after 5:00i p.m:.during the. earliest. . 95401-4643 707.575.5800 sunset.days in December. Therefore,- tennis members:would typically start arriving at.1,,,t. , 707.575.5888 fax approximately 5:00 p.m. for the new extended hours -of play on those earliest sunset days. tikm@tjkm.com Assuming, playing hours would end at 10:00 -p.m., the traffic analysis should assume only. five www.gkm.cottt 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. 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 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 Trak 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 Ist • 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 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 n = 4 months (max.) • 6:00 to 10:00 = 4 hours; March I st 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 5th 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 Scott Domnie 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 rhaygoodC@tjkm.com . Very truly yours, A Richard K. Haygood, PE, TE Director of Traffic & Multimodal Studies JAJURISDICTIOMOLos Altos Hi1IsVFremont Hills COLR 042114 Traffic Study Peer Review.docx ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY .COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO OUTDOOR LIGHTING FOR PROPERTIES WITH A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF PRIVATE RECREATION AREA (RA -PR). WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club has applied for a modification to its Conditional Use Permit to allow to allow lighting on five of its ten tennis courts; WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club is designated Private Recreation Area (RA - PR) in the Town's adopted General Plan, and is the only property designated as Private Recreation Area (RA -PR) in the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinance does not allow the lighting of tennis courts on any properties and does not distinguish between public and private recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinance is necessary in order to approve the modification to the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Fremont Hills Country Club; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning and Site Development Ordinance amendment to permit lighting of tennis courts under certain conditions would only apply to properties with a General Plan designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area) and Fremont Hills Country Club is the only property within the Town of Los Altos Hills with this designation; and WHEREAS, the property designated RA -PR is greater than 17 acres, with tennis courts located at least 275 feet from the nearest adjacent home; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would only permit tennis court lighting that includes cutoff shields that minimize light spillage off the court and that is located no less than 120 feet from any property line; and WHEREAS, recreational facilities are only permitted in the Residential -Agricultural Zoning District subject to a Conditional Use Permit, which can include specific conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, as a condition to the modification of the Fremont Hills Country Club Conditional Use Permit, the proposed lights will be timer controlled and will not be allowed to be turned on from before sunset and after 10:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed pursuant . to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states that the private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility; and WHEREAS, properties with the General Plan designation of RA -PR provide important recreation facilities for the community; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS. Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby makes the following findings: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2. The record for these proceedings, upon which this ordinance is based, 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 part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on , 2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2). 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located and available for review at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA. 4. The proposed Zoning and Site Development Ordinance amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states that the private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility and because the 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." None of the amendments will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. Page 3 of 6 SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as follows (with additions indicated in double underline). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. 1. AMENDMENT OF ZONING CHAPTER OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Section 10- 1.703 of Article 7 (Residential -Agricultural District (R -A)) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions indicated in double underline: 10-1.703 Conditional uses and structures (R -A). The following uses may be established in the Residential -Agricultural District subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, and the issuance of a permit thereof pursuant to the provisions of this chapter: (a) Public libraries; (b) Churches, other places of worship, and convents, but not including funeral chapels or mortuary chapels. The number of residents of a convent shall not exceed three and five -tenths (3.5) times the estimated maximum number of lots permitted.by the provisions of this chapter on such property as is devoted. exclusively to convent use; (c) House trailers or other vehicles may not be used as primary or secondary dwellings. A temporary permit for the use of a house trailer as a dwelling for not more than thirty (3 0) days in any calendar year maybe issued by the City Clerk upon certification that the use pursuant thereto shall be by a bona fide nonpaying guest, but in all events applicable setback requirements shall be strictly enforced; (d) Recreational facilities, including recreational or community center buildings. and grounds for games and sports, except those customarily earned on primarily for profit; (e) Large family day care homes. Large family day care homes which provide care, protection and supervision of seven (7) to twelve (12) children, inclusive, (including children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home) in the provider's own home, for periods of less than twenty-four (24) hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, pursuant to State regulations, shall be granted a conditional use permit under the following circumstances and procedure: (1) Only one large family day care home may be located on a parcel; (2) The Zoning Administrator shall review and decide the application for a use permit; (3) Not less than ten (10) days prior to the date on which the decision will be made on the application, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice of the proposed use by mail or delivery to all owners shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within a one hundred (100) foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed large family day care home. No hearing on the application shall be held before a decision is made, unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected person; Page 4 of 6 (4) The use permit shall be granted on reasonable conditions regarding traffic, parking and noise control and on the condition that the home comply with the regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal relating to large family day care homes; (5) The applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in accordance with this chapter. (f) Public schools where designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; (g) Private schools where designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; (h) Public utility and service uses: (1) No conditional use permit or building permit shall be required for any public utility distribution or transmission line, provided, however, the proposed routes of all electrical distribution lines carrying current in excess of fifteen (15) kilovolts and the location of public utility structures requiring rights-of-way of thirty (30) feet or more in width shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the acquisition of rights-of-way therefor, and any construction thereon shall not be commenced until such approval shall have been received; and. (2) Service uses are those uses which are determined by the Council to be beneficial to the provision of emergency or public safety services (including but not limited to communications facilities, storage of vehicular and other equipment, materials and supplies for emergency use in protective work, the restoration of public facilities, and/or debris and wreckage clearance). (i)Fire stations; O)Police stations; (k) Town facilities; (I) Commercial stables in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title 6 of this Code and when deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission to meet the needs of the residents of the Town for stabling facilities. (m) Use of a single family residence building and accessory structures by a California nonprofit public benefit corporation qualified for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code for meetings and overnight accommodations relating to the charitable activities of the corporation; provided that: (1) The site (single parcel or combination of contiguous parcels) comprises a minimum of twenty-five (25) acres; and (2) A minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the site is secured to remain as open space and/or conservation areas for the period of time and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit issued in respect to such use. (n) The use of artificial lighting may be permitted for tennis courts on properties with a General Plan designation of Private Recreation Area (RA -PR). Lighting must be shielded so that the light source is not visible from off site and must be Located no less than 120 feet from any property line. Page 5 of 6 2. AMENDMENT OF SITE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Sections .10-2.1002, 10-2.1004 and 10-2.1005 of Article 10 (Outdoor Lighting) of Chapter 2 (Site Development) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions indicated in double underline: 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. 10-2.1002 Recreation courts. No artificial lighting shall be permitted for tennis and other recreation courts, except as provided for in section 10-1.703(nl. 10-2.1003 Swimming pools and spas. Artificial lighting of swimming pools and spas shall be permitted only under the following conditions: (a) Lights are placed beneath the surface of the water in the pool or spa to illuminate the water. (b) Other exterior lights 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. 10-2.1004 High intensity lighting prohibited. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited, except as provided for in section 10-1.703(nl. 10-2.1005 Outdoor lighting—General. Outdoor lighting should use the minimum number and wattage lights which will 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 Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code). Additional lighting may be permitted where it is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate_ the area or as permitted by Section 10- 1.703 n . SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. Page 6 of 6 If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from Within 15 days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published once, City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the Los Altos Town general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk City Attorney 2288915.1 the date of its passage. with the names of those Crier, a newspaper of Mayor, John Radford TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov ATTACHMENT 3 1,0800S HILLS CALIFORNIA Outdoor Lighting Policy Approved by City Council —9/30/07 Amended by City Council —5/17/12 Amended by City Council — Date Code Sections and Fast Track Guide for New Residences: Article of Title 10 Chapter 2 of the Site Development Ordinance outlines criteria for outdoor lighting. In particular, Section 10-2.1005 indicates that outdoor lighting should use "the minimum wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light �"sources "shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site." Goal IV (0) of the Fast:,Track Guide for New Residences suggests that exterior lights be carefully placed to prey�Ji& shining onto neighboring houses. The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances lirnit:.lighting within the property line setbacks to "driveway light fixtures, limited to one fixture on each side of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per lot," but additional fixtures may be approved if necessary for safety. Intent: The purpose of Zoning and Site Development Ordinances and the Fast Track. Guide regarding outdoor lighting is to assure that the open and peaceful character of the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, lighting does not intrude on the privacy of neighbors, light pollution is reduced, and the glare is minimized onto adjacent properties. The intent of this policy is to clarify the types and numbers of lighting fixtures that are generally consistent with the ordinances and the Fast Track Guide, yet to allow flexibility for additional lighting when it is necessary for safety purposes or where it is not visible from off the site. Policy: 1. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to providing for one light per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at double doors or garage doors, etc., and additional lights only where the Planning Director or Planning Commission determines they are needed for safety. 2. Pathway and driveway lighting should be restricted to low -height fixtures and should be spaced the maximum distance apart which will still provide for safe use. In order to avoid a "runway" appearance, it is recommended that lighting be placed on only one side of the driveway or walkway, or alternate from one side to the other. Recessed louvered lights are suggested for walkways and steps. 3. Light fixtures should be shielded or downlights, so that the light source is not visible from off site. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. 4. Downlighting from trees is acceptable if provided for safety or for outdoor use areas, where minimal in number, and where the light source is not visible from off site. 5. Uplighting of trees is not allowed, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the number of such lights are minimal and the glow of the uplighting would not be visible from off site. 6. Spotlights should be limited in number, and directed away from clear view of neighbors. Shielding of spotlights with shrouds or louvers is suggested. 7. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited, except as provided in Municipal Code Section 10-1.703(n). 8. Lighting within the property line setbacks is limited to two driveway light fixtures e*, for the purpose of locating and identifying the site. No lights are allowed in side or rear yard setback areas, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 9. The Planning Commission and/or staff may allow lighting different from that outlined above when the proposed outdoor lighting is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area, or where the size of the property and/or extensive screening will assure that the light source is not visible from off site. 10. Artificial lighting is not permitted for tennis courts or other recreation/sports courts, except as provided in Municipal Code Section 10-1.703(n . 11. Pool lighting is allowed under the following conditions: • Lights are placed beneath the surface of the water in the pool or spa to illuminate the water • Other exterior lights used to illuminate the surrounding area use the minimum number and wattage of lighting which will safely illuminate the area • No direct light is cast beyond the immediate area of the pool Definitions • Glare - Lighting entering the eye directly from luminaries or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility. • Light Pollution - Any adverse effect of artificial light including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment. ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB LOCATED AT 2889 VISCAINO PLACE WHEREAS, The existing Conditional Use Permit allows operation of the Fremont Hills County Club at 12889 Viscaino Place; and WHEREAS, that Conditional Use Permit includes condition of approval number 8, which specifically prohibits tennis court lighting; and WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club has requested an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to construct outdoor lighting on five of their ten existing tennis courts; and WHEREAS, Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.703(d) provides that recreational facilities may be permitted in the Residential -Agricultural District pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit including specific conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed tennis court lighting uses a specialized recreational lighting design using lights that have cutoff shields that only shine down onto the court itself with little lighting spillage off the court; and WHEREAS, the proposed lights will be timer controlled and will not be allowed to be turned on from before sunset and after 10:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states that the private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing to consider the revisions to the Conditional Use Permit at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and 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 Page 2 of 3 (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 part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on , 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 proposed use or facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; The existing private recreation facility use of this site provides a recreation source for residents in the Town. The property operates under a Conditional Use Permit and has a General Plan Designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). The existing tennis courts have been in place since 1966 and are a compatible use with the on-site environment and for the proposed tennis court lighting. Parking demand for the project is not anticipated to have any negative impact on the site. Increased traffic demands meet the level of service anticipated in the Town's General Plan. 2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 1, or will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area; The proposed project will not change the existing uses already in operation on site. The site is of adequate size (17 acres) and shape to accommodate the new light fixtures on the existing tennis courts. The property maintains a General Plan Designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). Existing topography, perimeter landscaping, dark court playing surfaces, shielded fixtures and tennis court screen -fencing will buffer the proposed lighting effects from surrounding properties and therefore will be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; The site has access directly to Viscaino Place which provides connection to Viscaino Road and a second entrance to Roble Ladera Road. Parking is available on the site (147 spaces). The Traffic Study for this project found that there will be a maximum increase of 102 daily trips in the winter months as a worst case scenario. The resulting daily traffic volumes were compared to those identified as typical in the General Plan. Based on the analysis by the Traffic Engineer, all of the roadways segments would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan as acceptable. Page 3 of 3 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Project conditions including lighting, traffic and noise have been analyzed and found to have little or no impacts to ensure that nearby properties are not adversely impacted by the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills resolves that Conditional Use Permit is hereby amended as indicated in the revised Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Attachment 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective on (DATE). PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 12014 BY: Mayor John Radford ATTEST: City Clerk 2288917.1 ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATIONS AT FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 12889. VISCAINO PLACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The continuation of this Conditional Use Permit shall be issued to Fremont Hills Country Club for the property designated as Parcel 175-55-46, 12889 Viscaino Place (17.03 gross acres). 2. The maximum number of horses to be kept or maintained at this facility at any one time is 55. 3. The maximum floor area and development area allowed under this permit are as follows: MDA at 200,683sq. ft. MFA at 30,572 sq. ft. 4. There shall be twenty-four (24) hour supervision of said premises by a competent attendant who is knowledgeable about horse care and authorized to see that the conditions of this Use Permit are met. 5. A Business License from the Town shall be required for the both the Country Club and the stable operations, and shall be- renewed annually on January first, as long as all conditions of this Use Permit have been met. 6. Staff, 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 be 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. Planning Commission and City Council. 7. All requirements of the Santa Clara County Health Department and Palo Alto Animal Control shall be complied with throughout the life of this permit: 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 is 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. 8. 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. Ter. -As ..eurt lighting is s eifieally prohibited. 9. Tennis court lights are permitted to be installed on court numbers 4-8. All tennis court lights shall be located a minimum of 120 feet from any property lines. 10. The proposed light fixtures shall be the Visionaire Advantage 1,000 -watt metal halide tennis court luminaires or equivalent mounted at 22 feet above the court surface on dark colored poles. All tennis court light fixtures shall be fully shielded and equipped with light cutoff shields in order to eliminate glare and light spillage beyond the tennis court fencing. 11. Tennis courts that are not being actively played on shall not be lighted. Motion detectors or a similar self -controlling means shall be required. 12. 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. 13. All tennis court fencing shall maintain dark mesh backdrop covers and dark court surfaces. 14. There shall be no expansion of the tennis spectator facilities. 15. The club shall monitor tennis activities to ensure that loud or unnecessary noise is not generated by such activities. 16. All :unpaved driveways, parking areas and horse riding areas shall be maintained in a manner sufficient to control dust to a level 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 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. 21. The. maximum number of memberships to the Club shall be limited to 500 member families. 22. 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 showing enlargement of the parking areas to accommodate additional parking on site. 23. 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) maybe 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. 24. 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 the 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. 25. 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 26. 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. 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). 27. 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 l 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 28. 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 barn 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. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT :CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ADDITION OF TENNIS COURT LIGHTING ON FIVE OF THE TEN EXISTING COURTS AT FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 12889 VISCAINO PLACE File# 11-13-MISC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the new lighting fixtures prior to beginning any work on-site. 3. The proposed light fixtures shall be the Visionaire Advantage 1,000 -watt metal halide tennis court luminaires mounted at 22 feet above the court surface on dark colored poles. The fixtures shall be fully shielded. 4. The club shall monitor tennis activities to ensure that loud or unnecessary noise is not generated by such activities. 5. There shall be no expansion of the tennis spectator facilities. MITIGATION MEASURES 6. 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. 7. MM - Aesthetics — 2) Courts not being actively played shall not be lighted. Motion detectors or some similar self -controlling means shall be required. 8. 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. 9. MM - Aesthetics — 4) All tennis court.fencing shall maintain dark mesh backdrop covers and dark court surfaces. 10. 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. Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department at least two weeks prior to final Building Department inspection. Please call (650) 941-7222 to schedule the inspection. The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. ATTACHMENT 6 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 ("MCC") 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 courtsWill,be equipped'with (8) 1000 -watt metal halide tennis court lights ;that are fully shieldedjpr 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. Proposed Project Information Site FHCC is sited on a somewhat terraced hillside, with the parking lot at about +3171 , 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 .wilI be protected from view by the backdrop until the adjacent property is at Feast 100 feet W 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) Fence with screen +395 +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 IH 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 blockirig 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). . E 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. /OQROFESS/O� m r No. 12078 Exp 12-31-13 7 SCTRICK" ��- \CF CAI-1FC� P BENYA BURNETT CONSULTANCY 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 toned, neutral, or cool colored. 15-60 Full Sized Fluorescent White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored. 40-110 Light Emitting Diode White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 25-100 Metal Halide White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 50-120 High Pressure Sodium Yellow -pink light onlyT_ 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 '/z 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 M1000/U probe start lamp Z 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 BENYA LIGHTING DESIGN 1 61 2 OLYMPIC DRIVE DAVIS, CA -1561 6.6663 WWW.BENYABURNETT.COM PAGE 2 OF 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.xls 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 themost atmospheric particles before exiting into space. 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 trespassand 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 �QFcOFESS/p�\ -ASS R No. 12078 Exp 12-31-15 FCTRIGP'� 10% �aF CALIF�� ail _{ 1 !TanceNAIRE LIGHTING In A Whole New light �J J Ts-nr,i, l fghtiny 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 high performance fixture designed specifically for tennis with up to triple the light compared to other court fixtures. It is now possible to have smoothly lit 150 footcandle averages and 80x/0 lumen retention over time with only eight 1000 watt fixtures! Utilizing the unique VISION T"' 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 751/b more light and 25% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 450 watt Advantage fixtures offer improved light and 55% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures N Z cW L D J O O F W u Z H Z D cO G n N N CL O O O w J 0 Q 0 J 00 0 U J J 2 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. it U U_ LL W O G TESTI NiONIAL "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 Advantage Tennis Court Fixture. Our light levels more than tripled, increasing from 30 to 45 foot candles to 180 foot candles at the net, 177 at the service line, and 129 foot candles behind the base line after the new fixtures were installed. Our members and instructors are ecstatic with our lighting upgrade. I know cc that the level of play and fun at our club U V) will increase with these new fixtures:' z z W LU Kim Perino, Director of Tennis Riviera Tennis Club, Pacific Palisades, CA w IT -0 • The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design inspired by the sleek styling of a European sports car. The new patent -pending VisionTM Tennis Court Reflector System is unlike any other, providing more light per watt than ever before. The flat lens, vertical lamp, IES full cutoff luminaire is Dark Sky certified to restrict light trespass, glare and tight pollution for neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. The low profile, aerodynamic -shaped housing is available with several different, unique, mounting arms for tennis applications. Adurable polyester powder coat finish is a variety of colors will compliment any sports facility. Computerized precision machinery, quality materials, and silicone Basket- ing ensure manufacturing to the highest industry standards. Model No. Optics ADV .. e 13 ADV -2 o Tennis Flat Glass (T4T) Wattage Source Waftage Source a 400 (400) MH, PS a 450 (450) {M), (P) a 750 (750) o a a 875 (875) 'Consult factoo a 1000 (1000) MH - Metal Halide 'Reduced Envelope PS - Pulse Start Metal Halide Lamp on 1000w ---------- 1 c 11 I � I B I � A i• I 'apprax bs basad an heaviest oonWallm wrpacksging ADV -2 1 2.8 ) 30' 1 20.5" 1 11" 1000w 1 57 The Advantage fixture's unique, patent -pending Tennis Court reflector is designed specifically for today's levels of play and is the ideal fixture for tennis clubs, public parks, universities, schools, and residential courts. With the option of higher light levels or lower energy costs this industry-leading fixture offers substantial advantages over traditional lighting systems. The Advantage is available with the new Pulse Start Metal Halide lamp in 1000 or 875 watts; as well as the latest energy saving 750, 450, and 400 watt lamps. Utilizing the latest in techology Pulse Start Metal Halide lamps provide more light per watt over a longer period of time, better color consistency, and smooth, even light for any court facility. Voltage Mounting Finish . a . a Slip Fit Ae 0 480 (5) (SFA) M.Tap 'Consult factoo 7rI3 bolt -on and da(6) n Options a Back Shield (BS) 0 4 -Sided Shield (4SS) �4FT� `---4FT �—�4FT 1 12" EPA: 1.5 j EPA: 2. TNS 100-S 1 TNS100 Tennis Court mounting arm is constructed of 1% x 3" rect- angular steel tubing. This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon (or pole) sizes: 3'/2*0, 4"0, & 4'/2"0. TNS100 is available in the ❑ TNS100 following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 180°, Triple 90°, Triple 120°, and Quad. 4FT EPA: 1.5 12" TNS101-S1 4FT Model No. 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, 3'/"0, 4"0, & 4'h"0. TNS 101 ❑ TNS1o1 is available in the following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 180°, Triple 90°, Triple 120°, and Quad. TNS 100-D2 o Bronze (BZ) 0 Double (D2) 0 3-'%" dia. (3.5) o Black (BK) o Triple 901 (T9) Configuration Pole or Tenon Size Finish n 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) o Green (GN) 0 Quad (QD) ❑ Single (S1) 0 3-'/z" dia. (3.5) ❑ Bronze (BZ) 0 Double (D2) 0 4" dia. (4) 0 Black (BK) o Triple 900 (T9) 0 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) o White (WH) 0 Triple 1200 (T1) 0 Green (GN) 0 Quad (QD) 0 Custom (CC) N— 4FT EPA: 2.2 TNS 101-D2 Configuration I Pole or Tenon Size I Finish 0 Single (S1) 0 3" dia. (3) o Bronze (BZ) 0 Double (D2) 0 3-'%" dia. (3.5) o Black (BK) o Triple 901 (T9) n 4" dia. (4) o White (WH) o Triple 1200 (T1) n 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) o Green (GN) 0 Quad (QD) 13 Quad o Custom (CC) 4FT -I � 4FT 4FT 18" WW'EPA. 2.2 � V=2� EPA: 3.8 TNS 102-S 1 TNS 102-D2 TNS102 Tennis Court Theme mounting arm is constructed of 1'/2" x 3" Model No. 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 (or pole) sizes: 3'/2"0, 4"0, & 4%"0. TNS102 is available in the fol- lowing pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1800, Triple 900, Triple 120°, and Quad. Configuration I Pole or Tenon Size 1 Finish ❑ Single (S1) ❑ 3-%2" dia. (3.5) 0 Bronze (BZ) 0 Double (D2) ❑ 4" dia. (4) o Black (BK) o Triple 900 (T9) 0 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) 0 White (WH) 0 Triple 1200 (T1) 13Green (GN) 13 Quad (QD) 13 Custom (CC) ViSIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance in A Whole New Light 19645 Rancho Way Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220 Tel: 310.512.6480 or 877.977.5483 Fax: 310.512.6486 www.visionairelighting.com/tennis or visit us on our main website at www.visionairelighting.com Dus LISTED The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design inspired by the sleek styling of a European sports car. Vision TM is a patented, revolutionary new reflector system unlike any other. The flat lens, vertical lamp, IES full cutoff luminaire is Dark -Sky certified to restrict light trespass, glare and light pollution for neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. The low -profile, aerodynamic -shaped housing is complimented 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. ADV -2 I Tennis 1 400 1 PS Flat Glass (T4T) (400) 450 I PS Reduced envelope (450) Name I I t i N Ft— A L B vixture A D C Max. Watts Lb ®®® � Advantage is available in one size and one distribution pattern, including a special forward throw UT reflector for tennis and other sport applications. Vision"'" Reflector System allows the use of fewer fixtures and poles with wider spacings, providing substantial equipment, installation and energy cost savings. Advantage offers a selection of Pulse Start and Metal Halide lamps from 400 through 1000 watts. 120 Slip Fit Arm Tennis Green 4 -Sided L' ht Shield (1) (SFA) (GN) (4S1 208 Davit Arm Black Back Shield (2) (DA) (BK) I (BS) 240 Adjustable Knuckle 750 PS (3) Mount (750) (KM) 875 PS 277 (875) (4) 1000 MH, PS 480 (low) (5) (M), (P) M -Tap 'Multi -Tap ballast wired at 277 V unless specified (6) 347 (8) MH - Metal Hailde PS - Pulse start Metal Halide V ISIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance In A Whole New L, Bird -B -Gone (BBG) 'Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket. See Mounting Arms section. 19645 Rancho My - Rancho Dom riguez. CA- 90220 Tel (310) 512-6480 - Fax (310) 512-6486 wtiw vnsonairelightw,ng cot, 0608 11 Housing • All housings are manufactured using technologically advanced computer numerical control (CNC) machinery. Precision sheared and formed, corrosion -resistant aluminum. • The computerized CNC machinery enables all Advantage housings to be constructed quickly, efficiently and in adherence with exacting ISO 9002 standards. All external hardware is stainless steel. Lens and Door Assembly • Removable door assembly is CNC precision, sheared and formed from corrosion -resistant aluminum, with captive stainless steel fasteners. • The lens is a tempered, clear safety glass, secured by galvanized lens retainers, and sealed with silicone gasketing to provide complete weather and insect protection. Vision"" Optical System • Reflector is precision CNC cut and bent, multifaceted, segmented, highly efficient, 95% reflective aluminum. Available in a specialized T4T tennis reflector. • Tool -less reflector entry. Quali-Guard® Finish • The finish is a Quali-Guard® textured, chemically pretreated through a multiple stage washer, electrostatically applied, thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum of 3-5 millimeter thickness. Finish is oven -baked at 400 OF to promote maximum adherence and finish hardness. All finishes are available in standard and custom colors. • Finish is guaranteed for two (2) years. 4' EPA 1 2 TNS100-S1 Slip fits over 23/e Fixture with Arm 1 0 - Mounting • Slip fit arm mount (SFA), davit arm (DA) or knuckle mount (KM) available. • Please see Mounting Arms section for a choice of tennis davit arm options, brackets and accessories. Electrical Assembly • All ballasts are premium -grade HPF regulating autotransformers. Ballast is capable of providing consistent lamp starting down to -20 OF. Available in: • Metal Halide (MH) • Pulse Start Metal Halide (PS) • Socket is glazed porcelain medium or mogul base with nickel - plated contacts, rated at 4 kV (5 kV for 1000 watt) and 600 V. Options • 4 -Sided light shield • Back shield • Bird -B -Gone Please consult factory for custom options. Listings •Advantage is gym. listed, suitable for wet locations. • Dark -Sky Friendly", full cutoff certified by the International Dark -Sky Association. • ®$A compliant. • Powder Coated Tough TIA • Vision TM Reflector System (U.S. Patent No. 7,213,948). �-- 4' EPA 2 4 f 1' 1 V ISIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance In A Whole New Light TNS100-D2 TNS103 Davit Arm 'Tennis mounting arms slip -fit over tenons or poles. available in single, double 1800, D90, D70, and quad. "Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket. See Mounting Arms section. SINGLE COURT 60X120 19.4 40.7 •584 *71.4*67.3 70.6 69.4 6-48 71,0 •59.3 43.6 21.0 31.5 70. • . 4 72.0 34.6 37.9 71. 115 •11 •131 •12 •124 •134 111 •11 75.1 41.8 37.9 71. •115 11 •131 •12 •124 •134 •111 •11 75.2 41.$ 31.4 69. 2 71.8 34.5 19.4 40.5 58.3 '71.0 67.1 70.4 69.2 67.6 71.2 59.1 43.4 21.0 i -24Ft + 24Ft - I 19645 Rancho Way • Rancho Dominguez, CA • 90220 Ter: (310) 5126480 • Fax: (310) 512.6486 www.visionairelightng.com April 29, 2014 Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills, California ATTACHME (anghCsC req Onto 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 q Y p 447 Sutter Street 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 Page 2 Regarding: Fremont Hills Country Club - Tennis Court Lighting - Peer Review Los Altos Hills, CA 1= r=�r We agree with lighting fixture selection and we have found it suitable for C�[��JhC wag the application. Mc. 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 ATTACHMENT 8 Wu Acoustics Experts In acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club s(lomnie@fremonthills.com From: Jeff Irwin, Mei Wu Acoustics jeffrey.irrvin@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 V4'U Acoustics is pleased to submit this report regarding our noise impact study for the Fremont Hills Country Crib tennis court lighting project. We have taken sound measurements, with and without coup activity, and compared our results to the requirements of Section 5-2.02 of the Town of Los Altos Hilt's 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 50dBA during day hours (8am — l Opm weekdays, 9am -- lOpm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, IOpm — 9am weekends). F figure 1: blap of cm) (KH.C.C.) anc surrouncmg areas. The country club wishes to install lighting to allow later play on 5 of their 10 tennis courts (courts 94 through 48, 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 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. Figure Court;ayout; hag uighted courts are to be hghted At 4:0,Opm on Thursday, February 2l, 2012; Town of Los Altos Hills staff took sound measurements aloe- the club's northeastern property line at Roble Ladera Road. At this time, they rneasoi --d a "prevailing" noise level of 55dBA, with maximum levels reaching 59dBA. Approximately hal; 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 %vere compared to other sources. 7.- Measurement Process Soz13d rrtNters were set up at 3 srations (Figure 3); along the property lines nearest the tennis courts; on tine north, -ast, and south sides of the courts. Station i was located on the property lin-, beth:;een 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 bet4veen the drib and a private residence to the north (at approximately 12650 Roble Ladera Road). Figure 4 shows the locations of the measurement stations as viewed fron, nearby roads. nft 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 ik Measurement sets were taken using Norsonic Norll8 (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- Mi:Mute-averaged third -octave band levels, and the equivalent A -weighted sound levels rneasur-.d over time. Time data was recorded once per minute, with each data point representing sound levels integrated over one -minute periods. Baseline meastt:erriems (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). Measnrein-.nts'with the tennis courts in use were taken on Saturday, May 4, 2013; between 8:50am aad 9:20am (Station 1), between 9:50am and 10:20am (Station 2), and between 10:40arn and 1 H& -:m (Station 3). 3. Nleasuremeat Results A. Baseline Measurements Station i baseline m-�asurewxnt 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 4:15prn and 4:45p. -ii (Station 3). Done 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 1-280 was moderately heavy, though not congested. i. .Station 1 Station l 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-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 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 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. so �70 J : 60 50 ------- 40 � 30 � 2' - bruin - Lma., '0 10 -Leq N 16 Hz 63 Hz 250Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency hPire 5: Station I 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 rnzasurements integrated over a full 60 -second period. These levels remain nlos ly below 56dBA, and result in a 30 -minute average of 46.2dBA, SS i t C 50 C' Jv J�J 45 IJ (U a` 40 c --- Leq o Lave 14:15 14:20 14:2S 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Fisure 6. Station I baseline A-uei.hted 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 LI 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 1.99 curve the level exceeded during 99% of each measurement time (the approximate minimum). The only percentile curves that surpass 50dBA are the LI, L5, and LI0 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 1 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 s 60 55 > 50 a J 45 a 40 a v c 0 35 30-�_...-.- Ll L5 - - -- L10 1.50 L90 - _ L95 — - L99 - --- Leq 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Figure 7: Station I baseline A -weighted percentile measurements over time. U. >Slazion 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 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 fret;uencies (Figure 8), with maximt.ilti 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 1 80 ZE 70 v 60 J a 50 I - �---,- N 40 30 — Lmin c 20 — Lmax 10 -- Leq O -r- 'r—'---�-- 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz Frequency Figure g: 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. 65 pir L m 60 v V v 55 v c` 50 C C: O In 80 -75 E m 70 v m 65 -'% 60 m 55 l a` 50 a � 45 Ll LS - ---- LSO — L50 r I L90 — L95 L99 ----- Leq 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Fi,-sre 10: St; tion 2 baseline A-weigftted percentile noise levels over time 45 }-- -- Leq Lave 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Figu;e 9: Station 2 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time. J!!. Stmion .3 Station 3 measurements shoved unweighted sound levels (Figure 1 1) exceeding 50dB at low frequencies (IOOHz 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 8OdB at some frequencies. 90 l 80 70 cc 60 so N 40 v 30 a 20 c — Lntin 10 Lmax 0 — Leq 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency MWA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 6 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 503-8727 / 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 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 R 0 " 45 70 465 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 12: Station 3 baseline A-weishted noise levels over time. M � a 60 U � 55 \ � Ile\ �l✓/I J a 45 - Ll L5 - • -- L10 L50 L90 - -- L95 --- L99 -- Leq 40 - - -^� —r----r------r---�--- 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 13 Station 3 baseline A-v.eighted 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 Luse sometimes changed during measurement. Courts were used by 2 people at a time, with the exception of one court that Nvas 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. 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 I 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. 90 880 n 70 60 50 f� 40 v 30 20 - Lmin 0 10 -- Lmax N 0 meq_ 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency 1i. -cure 14: Station I 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 (FiJure 16) also showed significantly higher peaks over time. However, the higher levels measured were dWI 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 3 Q= SS c L i 50 d J Qi 45 d 40 C 7 O 35 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 15: Station I 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 8 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 70 i co a + iu 50 d a 40 c Ll L5 - ---- L10 LSO 30 -- --- -- r—L90 L95 L99 Leg 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time FiT.ue 16: Srition. I A-weighted percentile noise levels with tennis courts, over time. it' Station 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 !evels (Figure 17) were near or below 50dB at all audible frequencies. Peak levels as high as 73dB were recorded at some frequencies, but thewse Peaks %%ere due to the nearby Roble Ladera Road traffic rather than the noise from the coils ls. 80 azo C6* 60 50 40 v 30 N Cl a 20 - -- lmin 10 .I — Lmax ° — Leq 0�- 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 9 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.corn 60 C< 55 a v '' 50 tv 45 a c -- Leq Lave vci 40 -----•--r------,- 9:50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20 time Fieure 18- Station 2 A-v%eighted noise levels with tennis courts, over time _ 80 I a 70 v 60 d J / 7 So l N 40 11 LS -- L10 L50 o L90 --- — L95 --- - L99 — Le 30 ,— 9--- 950 9:55 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. Stt7rfon 3 Station 3 noise, levels vvlm again dominated by constant 1-280 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 belo�N, 50dB ill audible frequency bands, with peaks of up to 70dBA caused by the close -passing traffic on Roble Ladera Road. so 70 60 50 40 'N 30 w a` 20 Lmin C10 Lmax N 0 — Leq 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 1 www,mei-wu.com 4 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<0 55 -o °' 50 J G a � 45 -- Leq 'c Lave Ln 40 10:40 50:45 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 , C< 60 50 c 40 i ' -- Ll L5 L10 - L50 ' I L90 L95 - - L99 -- — Leq 30 - - 10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time Figure 22: Station 2 A•wei_hted percentile noise levels %%ith tennis courts, over time 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 — 10pm weekdays, 9am — 10pm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, lOpm — 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. "Che 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 EO a 70 CD i a EO 0 n cn r 40 30 Table is Summar of 30-minute-averased measurements. eL 0 ----fl Cf � A��♦ Station 1. Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3, No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full Ilsure 23 Summar of 30 -minute -averaged measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions --o-- Lmax --s- Ll �- L5 L10 -� - L50 --e- L90 -s-- L95 - L99 —M -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.mei-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 Peal( 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 I Peak Level: 65.2 dBA 90 EO a 70 CD i a EO 0 n cn r 40 30 Table is Summar of 30-minute-averased measurements. eL 0 ----fl Cf � A��♦ Station 1. Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3, No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full Ilsure 23 Summar of 30 -minute -averaged measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions --o-- Lmax --s- Ll �- L5 L10 -� - L50 --e- L90 -s-- L95 - L99 —M -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.mei-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 L 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 (10mph 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.mel-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 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 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 bleasurenuenis — The 15YA report sires noise measurements between 8:50 a.m. to 11:50am. and again benreen 2:15 p.m. and 4:45 p. in. "These measurements times are not relevant to the prime ny goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts oftennis courts' extended hours [into the night/. " 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. in.). A4easure one fill week to caphme 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 properly 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 #1 Tennis Court Noise In our original report, we showed that the equivalent noise levels at Station 91 did not exceed 50 dBA during moderately heavy tennis court use. As the total measured noise Ievel 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 I 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, nor 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 of people. 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 x2 — 4 players). This would total 16 players plus perhaps 2-4 additional people (e.g., non-playing captains and a couple of back-up or alternate players). Therefore, its 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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-time 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 larger 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 club have any seating or viewing areas for audiences'. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood Cityr CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mel-wu.com 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 La, — 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) n1 — 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 Lx and L2 include all noise (ambient and tennis). • The calculated level L,, 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 (L1 and L2) include contributions of both ambient and tennis noise, the following basic equations apply. L1 = Lt 10 loglo (riolo + n110 0) L2 = 1010910 (1010 + n210 0) Therefore, the total tennis noise level LT at a particular location, due to n players on the courts, is given by the following. n LI1 s LT = 10 login n1 (1010 — —1010) n2 — r r MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 of measurement, 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com MWOMei Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club CC: Larry Russell, Fremont Hills Country Club From: Gabriel Messingher, Mei Wu Acoustics Jeff Irwin, Mei Wu Acoustics Mei Wu, Mei Wu Acoustics Date: May 30, 2014 Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club: (Report #3) MWA Project 13026 sdomnie@fremonthills.com lawrence_charles@msn.com gabriel@mei-wu.com jeff@mei-wu.com meiwu@mei-wu.com Noise Impact of Tennis Court Lighting Project 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. Figure 1— measurement locations for evening ambient noise, May t� %*_ \ \ 7 *1 Q! t, .�� , 2014 (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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 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 17`h, 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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com Acoustics' Audiovisual Telecommunications Security Charles M Salter. PE David R. Schwind FAES .. Eric L. Broadhurst, PE PNI:p N. Sander; LEED AP Thcmas A. Sch'ndler, PE Anthony P. Nosh, PE Cristina L. Miyar Jason R. Duty, PE Durand R. Begoull. PhD, FRES Joseph G. D'Angolo Thomas 1. Corboll. CTS Enc A. Yee Joshua AL Roper, PE, LEED AP Peter K Hoist, PE, LEED AP Ethan C. Salter, PE, LEED AP Thomas D. Keller, CDT Craig L titian RCDD l!oyd B. Ranolo Alexander K Salter, PE Jeremy L. Decker, PE Rob Hammond, PSP, NICET III Mchc al S. Chao Andrew 1. McKee Pau! R. Billings Va!erfe C. Smith Erika A Frederick Benjamin D. Piper Elisabeth S. Ko' n Joshua J. Harrison Brian C. wourms Sharma Al Sullivan Amanda G. Higbie Ryan G. Raskop, LEED AP Diego Hernandez Ryan A. Schield Jamal Kinan Brion 1. Gcod Heather A. Salter Doe E. Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Marva De Voar - Ncardzeo Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Polmor Jcdesso G. Cortoz Susan - Lonergan Courtney H. Vineys Erin D. Gorton Megan C. Santos 13 February 2014 Cynthia Richardson Town of Los Altos Hills crichardson(&Iosaltoshills.ca.00v TTACHMENT 9 Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA CSA Project: 14-0053 Dear Cynthia: 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 www.cmmiter.com We have completed our peer review of the acoustical study prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics (MWA). The subject study was to evaluate the potential impact to neighbors resulting from extended hours of tennis play at night made possible by a new lighting system. This letter summarizes our comments on the MWA analysis for the subject project. k EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The MWA report does not adequately address the acoustical impact for the following reasons: • Existing nighttime noise levels were not presented • Noise from`tennfs' activity was not presented • The study does not address noise from possible worst-case scenarios REPORT EXCEPTIONS TAKEN 1. 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. to 4:45 p.m. These measurement times are not relevant to the primary goal of the report which is to `assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended hours [into the night]." Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quantify 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 2. 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 discernible above the other ambient noise." At Station 2, "measurements were dominated by constant I-280 traffic." And at Station 3 "were again dominated by constant I-280 traffic." Recommendation - Measure tennis activity nolse, compare these noise levels with the measured nighttime noise levels to assess noise ordinance compliance, predict audibility and annoyance. 3. Potential Noise Impact — The MWA report only measures real-time 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. Fremont Tennis Club Peer Review 13 February 2014 Acoustical Consulting 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� Eric A. Yee Principal Consultant 2014-02-10 Fremont Tennis pub Peer Review EAY/eay Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 www.cros:aller.com Charles M. Salter ASSOCIA'ES Ir.0 ,,.naries in #2anrer ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 2 June 2014 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Audiovisual Son Francesco. CA Telecommunications Cynthia Richardson 94104 Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security cdchardson(d)losaltoshills.ca.gov F 415.397.0454 www.crosotter.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M. Salter, PE CSA Project: 14-0053 David R Schwind FAES Eric L. Broadhurst, PE Dear Cynthia: Ph;6p N. Sanders, LEED AP Thomas A. Schindler, PE Anthony P. Nash, PE The most recent acoustical study from Mei Wu Acoustics measured the ambient noise between the CristinL.Mkyar hours of 8:00 pm and 8:30 pm at the residences closest to the tennis club. The background noise lesson R. Duty, PE ranges from 51-52 dBA. Durand R. Bog 11, PhD, FAES Joseph G. D'Angelo Based on other tennis court studies we have performed, the average noise level from a singles match Thomas 1.Ccrbott,CTS on one tennis court is 54 dBA when measured 50 feet from the court side line. The nearest neighbors Enc A. Yea JohuaM.Roper, PE. LEED AP ea are almost 500 feet from the tennis courts. At this distance, we calculate the noise from a single match Peter Ic Heist, 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. Thomas D. Keller, CDT Gag L. Ghon. RCDD If all ten courts were occupied simultaneously, the worst-case average noise would increase by 10 Lloyd B. Rondo decibels to 44 dBA when measured at the nearest property line. This assumes all people are playing at Alexander K. Salter, PE once. Even under these conditions, the tennis noise level is 6 decibels below the existing nighttime Jeremy L. Decker, PE Rab Hammond. PSP, NICET III background noise. At these noise levels tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and unless a Michael s Chore person was specifically listening for tennis activity, these noises should go unnoticed. Andrew J. McKee Paul R. Billings Human voices are often the loudest source of noise during a tennis matching. Shouting and emotional VaterieC.Smith outbursts could be audible even at 500 feet. In our experience, the noise from tennis balls and shoes Erika A. Frederick squeaks is not nearly as offensive as coarse or rude language. The club should encourage good Benjamin D. Piper EhsabethS.Kefson sportsman behavior using signage and friendly staff reminders of residences. Joshua J. Harrison Brian C. Wourms This concludes our peer review for the subject project. Should you have any questions, please give us Shonna M. Sullivan a call. Amanda G. Higb.e Ryon G. Roskap, LEED AP Sincerely, Diego Hernandez Ryan A Schofield lama[ Kinn CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian J. Good Heather A. Sailor Doe E Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Eric A. Yee Marva De Veer - Ncordzee Principal Consultant Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmer Jadewo G. Cortez 2014-02-10 Fremont Tennis Cub Peer Review Susan E lonergon EAY/eay Courtney H. Vineys Ern D Garton Megan C. Santos ATTACHMENT 10 I� , 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 x 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 z ; 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. 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. Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Jx 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. 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. r 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 RacquetfTennis 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 r. :D u Hemoo T(dnsPONtlOn (onSUIINK Inc. Page 1 2 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 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 10"' to Sunday February 16th, 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 cant' 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 cant' 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. �i u 6agon f rmnpoftation (onsuitOS, Inc. Page 1 3 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road. The counts show 135 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 =r_4 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 up to 17 new trips per hour when the lights were on. This calculates to 102 new daily 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 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 u Pewon Transportiltlon Cousultats. Im. Page 14 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Table 3 Table 4 Pexdqon TrapeadtioD (onsultdots. Inc. Page 15 Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Analysis LEGEND =Project Site Location = Study Segment .. HEXAGON Figure 1 Site Location and Study Segments NORTH a m sai. Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Analvsis LEGEND = Project Site Location � = Study Segment XX(XX) = ADT(Hourly Trips) .. HUMON Figure 2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Transportation Consultants Pleasanton 4305 Hacienda Drive Suite 550 Pleasanton, CA 94588-2798 925.463.0611 925.463.3690 fax Fresno 516 W. Shaw Avenue Suite 200 Fresno, CA 937042515 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax Sacramenro 980 Ninth Street 16,^ Floor Sacramento, CA 958142736 916.449.9095 Santa Rosa 1400 N. Dutton Avenue Suite 21 Santa ", CA 95401-4643 707.5755800 707.575.5888 fax tjkmQtjkm.com www.gkm.com ATTACHMENT 11 Vlslon That Moves Your Community April 21, 2014 Scott Domnie General Manager Fremont Hills Country Club 12889 Viscaino Place Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Via Email only: sdomnie(5)fremonthills.com Subject: Peer Review of Hexagon Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Altos Hills 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 Number of 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 year 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. Based on this flawed assumption, the TIA analysis assumes six (6) additional hours of play at the tennis courts to estimate the additional daily traffic resulting with the project. TJKM independently reviewed data for Los Altos Hills on sunset times throughout the year and found that the earliest sunset time was 4:51 p.m., which occurs from November 30th through December 14th. Under typical conditions, sufficient light remains for at least 10 to 15 minutes after sunset to continue playing tennis, which extends existing court use until a few minutes after 5:00 p.m. on the earliest sunset days in December. Staff at Fremont Hills Country Club has confirmed that tennis play typically continues past 5:00 p.m. at that time of year. This means that tennis members currently leave after 5:00 p.m, on the earliest sunset days in December. However, the TIA assumes that tennis members currently leave before 5:00 p.m. during December and January. The TIA also assumes that with the addition of lights, tennis members would start arriving as early as 4:00 p.m. during winter months for the new extended hours of play. However, staff at Fremont Hills Country Club states that tennis players typically arrive no more than 10 minutes ahead of their start of play. Based on the information presented in the previous paragraph, the new extended hours of play with the addition of lights would start after 5:00 p.m. during the earliest sunset days in December. Therefore, tennis members would typically start arriving at approximately 5:00 p.m. for the new extended hours of play on those earliest sunset days. Assuming playing hours would end at 10:00 p.m., the traffic analysis should assume only five (5) Best regards, Susan Mandle To: iima.pc(cDgmail.com; jitze(cD_couperus.org; kavitat(cDcom cast. net; ismandleA-hotmail.com; richard.partridge(@comcast. net; dpedro(cD-losaltoshills.ca.gov; bfroelichna.losaltoshills.ca.gov; sdomnie(cD_fremonthills.com, lawrence charles @rnsn.com Subject: FHCC tennis lights From: whitetigerw(cD.aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:23:44 -0500 Dear fellow neighbors and council members: I have lived in LAH since 1978, and loved every minute of it. First in my parents home, and them after university and working for sometime, getting a LAH home of my home a mile from my parents. I have watched the town transform itself/its homes from a rural country setting into a more polished finished -landscaped high end community. The population and demographics of the town have changed, and the use of lights and lighting in and outside the homes has substantially increased. The council has worked hard to slow down this transformation, and make sure it is in line with the longer terms plans of the town and its population. Allowing FHCC to get lights would be in line with this 'new look' and mood of the town. I use to go to FHCC when I was a child living in Palo Alto with family friends, and the mood and ambiance of the setting and members has stayed lovely, understated and family oriented. I finally joined the club in 2001 when I had time to play tennis full time. I am one of the fortunate ones who can come during the daylight hours. However, there is a large population that works and can only play early mornings or evenings and weekends. The club members are primarily from our local community, and I am certain that they would be respectful of their immediate neighbors if they were allowed to play in the evenings. The landscaping surrounding the FHCC property, in particular, the large trees, coupled with the facts that the tennis courts are set on low ground will make the impact of the new high tech lights a minimum change to the neighborhood light output. The use the courts with the lights will be when people are inside their homes with their own internal sounds (TV, dinner, music). I know that FHCC has approched this request to install the lights with care and much thought. At this time the technology of the new lights has caught up with the change in the town character, so that the tennes court lighting will not be an distraction or eyesore or bother to the neighbors and town. I respect that you approve the request to install them. Sincerely yours, MAYUR BA UGH (650) 218-4241 cell # Cynthia Richardson From: Kim Bishop [kim@net-net.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:35 AM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; Lorelie Russell Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support We are in support offreniont Hills Country Club's proposal to add tennis court lights in a neighborfilendly way, to increase recreation opportunities for youth and adults, to allow FHCC to have similar amenities that other clubs in the area have, and to benefit the community as a quality club and local resource. Kim and Brad Bishop Cvnthia Richardson From: Rick Zirpolo [RickZ@rabbitoa.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:47 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support I want to let you know that I support the adding of lights to a limited number of courts at Fremont hill club. Richard Zirpolo 12675 Dianne drive Los altos hills,Ca 94022 Sent from my iPad 9 Cynthia Richardson From: Marvin Wenger [mwenger@CleanSource.com] Sent: Monday, June 02,2014 12:49 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; lawrence—charles@msn.com Cc: MBDEA57@aol.com; sdomnie@fremonthills.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Dear Los Altos Town Council Members — We have been Los Altos Hills residents for over 20 years and are appreciative of your ongoing stewardship and support. As such, we thank you very much for taking the proposal to authorize the addition of non-invasive lighting to our club, Fremont Hills Country Club. We believe that adding this dimension is an important step in the evolution of our club and the community. We hope you share our view that professional, attractive and functional recreational facilities and programs are a draw to the residents of our evolving and growing Los Altos and Los Altos Hills community. Thank you again for your consideration. We look forward to the upcoming meeting on the 24th of this month. Best regards, Marvin and Beth -Ann Wenger 25484 Adobe Lane LAH Marvin Wenger I President Clean" urce xNt cw.tie� s�ir�;r tzmaars CleanSource 650 Brennan Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Office: 408.324.3201 Mobile: 408.314.1664 Fax: 408.324.3294 E-mail: mwenaerO.cleansource.com Website: www.cleansource.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and delete all copies of this message. 10 Cynthia Richardson From: Steve Shepherd [steveshepherd1@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 7:53 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charies@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Hello, My wife and I are in support of the lighting project for Fremont Hills Country Club as presented. We understand that only courts #4 - #8 will be lighted as they are the courts lowest on the property and would be less noticed by any neighbors to that property. I served on the Board of Directors of FHCC in 1987-1988 and was the President of the Board in 1988. One of our goals at that time was to provide lighting to the tennis courts to allow a large percentage of our membership, both adults and children, to play tennis after evening hours. We are very encouraged to support the efforts of our current management and Board of Directors in this project. Fremont Hills Country Club has always been a good neighbor and a family focused tennis and swim club. This seems to fit the same mission of the Town of Los Altos Hills. We believe enhancing the membership services of this Club would provide mutual benefits not only to current members, but to future members of the Club, many of whom reside in the community of Los Altos Hills. Best regards, Steve and Bev Shepherd 465 Cavalier Court Los Altos, Ca 94022 11 Cynthia Richardson From: Rich Beyer [beyer.rich@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 11:53 AM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support I would like to indicate to you the members of the LAH Planning Commission that I support the application of Fremont Hills CC's request for lighting of several of the tennis courts. i believe the CC has been highly responsive to the requests of neighbors and the Planning Commission and that the Club is a very good member of the LAH community and a good neighbor. I ask that you support their request. Thank you Regards, Rich Beyer 13503 Fremont Road LAH 94022 12 Cvnthia Richardson From: Amy Johnson [amy.johnson@ajx2.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:47 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support We fully support the Club's proposal to add tennis court lights in a neighbor friendly way, to increase recreation opportunities for youth and adults, to allow FHCC to have similar amenities that other clubs in the area have, and to benefit the community as a quality club and local resource. Thanks, Amy & Alex Johnson 13 Cynthia Richardson From: Art Benjamin [ajb7@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 7:59 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support I pass along my support for this project. Sent from my iPad 14 Cvnthia Richardson From: French, Nicholas [nicholas@serenogroup.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:40 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Cc: 'Melissa Kutrubes (melissa.kutrubes@gmail.com)' Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, We would like to voice our support to Fremont Hills Country Club application regarding tennis court lights on a portion of their tennis courts. The club has been a value -add to our community and given the location of the courts with respect to neighbors, we think the benefits greatly outweigh any negatives presented from adjoining properties. We also plan to speak at the June 24th commission meeting. Kind regards, Nicholas & Melissa French 13101 La Cresta Drive 650 773 8000 (cell) 650 947 3099 (fax) 15 41 Cynthia Richardson From: Steve Souders [steve@souders.org] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:45 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Please support FHCC getting tennis lights. We're a good participant in the community - most of the people I swim and play tennis with are NOT members but take advantage of the very open policy at FHCC. This will increase tennis enjoyment for FHCC members and the community. Thanks. -Steve Souders 16 EXHIBIT A 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 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. 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 3 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) Fence with screen +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. +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 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). 5 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. OQfyOFESS/ON No. Exp 12-31-13A k N�F�\OCALU� [e BENYA BURNETT CONSULTANCY 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 toned, neutral, or cool colored. 15-60 Full Sized Fluorescent White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored. 40-110 Light Emitting Diode White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 25-100 Metal Halide White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 50-120 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 '/z 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 61 2 OLYMPIC DRIVE DAVIS. CA 9561 6.6663 WWW.BENYABURNETT.COM PAGE 2 OF 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.xls 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. 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 QROFESS/O 9 -15Re Fti m No. 12078 Exp 12-31-15 d FCTRIGP \OF CALIFO— de, I ISIONAIRE LIGNTING k!Performance In A Whole New Light J ✓ J �J 'rrn3�j,- l.irif� 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 high performance fixture designed specifically for tennis with up to triple the light compared to other 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 energy - and requires fewer poles, saving court builders on new construction costs: NEIGHBORHOOD -FRIENDLY FULL CUTOFF REFLECTOR 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 25% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 450 watt Advantage fixtures offer improved light and 55% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures N z We L D J O O O L2 F Q9 W z H z D O 2 n N N CL 3 O O O W J O Q9 J CIO z W i J O O O H W z H z D 0 V N N O O O W J O d F J co N z CW L D J O O O co N F W z H z cO G V N N CL O rl n W J 0 d 66 F- u J co O U J a 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. LL LL 0 U J J I w 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 Advantage Tennis Court Fixture. Our light levels more than tripled, increasing from 30 to 45 foot candles to 180 foot candles at the net, 177 at the service line, and 129 foot candles behind the base line after the new fixtures were installed. Our members and instructors are ecstatic with our lighting upgrade. I know that the level of play and fun at our club ` N will increase with these new fixtures" z z W Kim Perino, Director of Tennis Riviera Tennis Club, Pacific Palisades, CA i Ti [LTi j TT The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design inspired by the sleek styling of a European sports car. The new patent -pending Visions' Tennis Court Reflector System is unlike any other, providing more light per watt than ever before. The flat lens, vertical lamp, IES full cutoff luminaire is Dark Sky certified to restrict light trespass, glare and light pollution for neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. The low profile, aerodynamic -shaped housing is available with several different, unique, mounting arms for tennis applications. A durable polyester powder coat finish is a variety of colors will compliment any sports facility. Computerized precision machinery, quality materials, and silicone Basket- ing ensure manufacturing to the highest industry standards. ---------- 1 c 1 I I � I B� I 'appro�lbs based m heaviest configuration w/packaging Fixture EPA A B C Max. Waft Lb - ADV -2 ADV -2 2.8 30" 20.5" 11" 1000w 1 57 The Advantage fixture's unique, patent -pending Tennis Court reflector is designed specifically for today's levels of play and is the ideal fixture for tennis clubs. public parks, universities, schools, and residential courts. With the option of higher light levels or lower energy costs this industry-leading fixture offers substantial advantages over traditional lighting systems. The Advantage is available with the new Pulse Start Metal Halide lamp in 1000 or 875 watts; as well as the latest energy saving 750, 450, and 400 watt lamps. Utilizing the latest in techology Pulse Start Metal Halide lamps provide more light per watt over a longer period of time, better color consistency, and smooth, even light for any court facility. Model ADV' Optics I Wattage ' Source I Voltage' Mounting ' Finish ' Options ❑ ADV -2 ❑ Tennis ❑ 400 (400) MH, PS ❑ 480 ❑ Slip Fit Arm [I Bronze 13 Back Shield Flat Glass (T4T) ❑ 450 (450) (M) (P) (5) (SFA) ) (BZ) (BS) 13750 (750) ❑ 875 (875) 0 ❑ ❑ M.Tap Consult factory for ❑ Black ❑ 4 -Sided Shield bolt -on and davit arms (BK) ❑ 1000 (1000) MH - Metal Halide (6) (4SS) PS - Pulse Start ❑ White 'Reduced Envelope Metal Halide (WH) Lamp on 1000w ❑ Green (GN) �4�� -4FT � 4FT--I P3' EPA: 1.5 EPA. -2.6 TNS 100-S 1 TNS 100-D2 Model No. TNS100 Tennis Court mounting arm is constructed of 1'/z" x 3" rect- angular steel tubing. This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon (or pole) sizes: 3'/2"0, 4"0, & 4%z"0. TNS100 is available in the ° TNS100 following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1801, Triple 90°, Triple 120°, and Quad. 4FT . - EPA: 1.5 TNS101-S1 4FT Pole or Tenon o Single (S1) 0 3-'/z" dia. (3.5) o Bronze (B2) O Double (D2) O 4" dia. (4) O Black (BK) O Triple 900 (T9) O 4'/" dia. (4.5) o White (WH) O Triple 120°(T1) O 4-%2" dia. (4.5) OGreen (GN) O Quad (QD) O Custom (CC) 4FT Model No. 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, 3'/"0, 4"0, & 4'/"0. TNS101 o TNS101 is available in the following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1800, Triple 900, Triple 1200, and Quad. TNS101-D2 Configuration I Pole or Tenon Size I Finish O Single (S1) O 3" dia. (3) O Bronze (BZ) O Double (D2) O 3-'/2" dia. (3.5) o Black (BK) O Triple 900 (T9) 1 O 4" dia. (4) O White (WH) 1 O Triple 120° (T1) O 4-%2" dia. (4.5) O Green (GN) O Quad (QD) O Custom (CC) 4FT � � 4FT 4FT ---I 2.2 EPA. 3.8 TNS 102-D2 - , TNS 102-S 1 TNS102 Tennis Court Theme mounting arm is constructed of 1 %2" x 3" Model No. 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 O TNS102 (or pole) sizes: 3'/2"0, 4"0, & 4'/2"0. TNS 102 is available in the fol- lowing pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 180°, Triple 901, Triple 120°, and Quad. Configuration I Pole or Tenon Size I Finish E3 Single (S1) O 3-%2" dia. (3.5) O Bronze (BZ) o Double (D2) O 4" dia. (4) O Black (BK) O Triple 900 (T9) O 4 '/2" dia. (4.5) I O White (WH) I o Triple 1200 (T1) O Green (GN) 13 Quad (QD) O Custom (CC) ViSIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance in A Whole New Light 19645 Rancho Way Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220 Tel: 310.512.6480 or 877.977.5483 Fax: 310.512.6486 www.visionairelighting.com/tennis or visit us on our main website at www.visionairelighting.com Name //� I I t I la— A B ►! rixture A t3 It; max. watts LbE 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. ADV -2 Tennis Flat Glass (T4T) 400 PS (400) 450 PS Reduced envelope (450) 750 PS (750) 875 PS (875) 1000 MH, PS (1000) (N1), (P) 120 (1) 208 (2) 240 (3) 277 (4) 480 (5) M -Tap 'Multi -Tap ballast wired at 277 V unless specified (6) 347 (8) MH - Metal Halide PS - Pulse Start Metal Halide VYISIONAIRE tIGNTIN6 Performance In A Wbo/o Now Slip Fit Arm Tennis Green 4 -Sided Liht Shield (SFA) (GN) (4 ST) Davit Arm Black Back Shield (DA) (13K) (BS) Adjustable Knuckle Bird -B -Gone Mount (BBG) (KM) 'Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket. See Mounting Arms section. 19645 Rancho Way • Rancho Dominguez, CA • 90220 Tel (310) 512-6480 • Fax (310) 512-6486 www.visionairelighbng.com 06.08.11 Housing • All housings are manufactured using technologically advanced computer numerical control (CNC) machinery. Precision sheared and formed, corrosion -resistant aluminum. • The computerized CNC machinery enables all Advantage housings to be constructed quickly, efficiently and in adherence with exacting ISO 9002 standards. All external hardware is stainless steel. Lens and Door Assembly • Removable door assembly is CNC precision, sheared and formed from corrosion -resistant aluminum, with captive stainless steel fasteners. • The lens is a tempered, clear safety glass, secured by galvanized lens retainers, and sealed with silicone gasketing to provide complete weather and insect protection. Vision TM Optical System • Reflector is precision CNC cut and bent, multifaceted, segmented, highly efficient, 95% reflective aluminum. Available in a specialized T4T tennis reflector. • Tool -less reflector entry. Quali-Guards Finish • The finish is a Quali-Guard"' textured, chemically pretreated through a multiple stage washer, electrostatically applied, thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum of 3-5 millimeter thickness. Finish is oven -baked at 400 °F to promote maximum adherence and finish hardness. All finishes are available in standard and custom colors. • Finish is guaranteed for two (2) years. � 4 I r TNS100-S1 ; Slip fits over 2% O.D. Fixture with Arm I W. Mounting • Slip fit arm mount (SFA), davit arm (DA) or knuckle mount (KM) available. • Please see Mounting Arms section for a choice of tennis davit arm options, brackets and accessories. Electrical Assembly • All ballasts are premium -grade HPF regulating autotransformers. Ballast is capable of providing consistent lamp starting down to -20 °F. Available in: • Metal Halide (MH) • Pulse Start Metal Halide (PS) • Socket is glazed porcelain medium or mogul base with nickel - plated contacts, rated at 4 kV (5 kV for 1000 watt) and 600 V. Options • 4 -Sided light shield • Back shield • Bird -B -Gone Please consult factory for custom options. Listings • Advantage is ®•• listed, suitable for wet locations. • Dark -Sky Friendly", full cutoff certified by the International Dark -Sky Association. • �Zk: compliant. • Powder Coated Tough TIM „ • Vision T11 Reflector System (U.S. Patent No. 7,213,948), WVISIONAIRE LIGHTING 7Performance In A Wbo/a Naw L/ bt 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. SINGLE COURT 60X120 *19.4 40.7 58,g *71.24,167.3 70.6 69.4 648 714 59.3 43.6 21 31.5 70. 4 72.0 34.16 37.9 71. •115 *11 *131 *12 •124 '134 •111 •11 7 75.1 41.$ 37.9 71. *115 '11 •131 *12 "124 *134 *111 '11 7 75.2 41.18 31.4 69. 2 71.8 34.5 ♦ 4 1 414 •19.4 40.5 58.3 `' ).'O 67.1 70.4 69.2 67.6 71.2 59.1 43.4 21.0 f --24H i 24rt - 19645 Rancho way • Rancho Dominguez. CA • 90220 Tel (310) 512-6480 • Fax (310) 512-6486 vAvw visionairelightmg corn 37 April 29, 2014 Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills, California EXH� enghs(braq onco 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. 447 Sutter Street The Dark Sky requirements are fully covered on the report under the 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 (rEL) area surface has no impact or insignificant due to the reflective surface of the material typically used in the tennis court. acgeng.com Page 2 Regarding: Fremont Hills Country Club - Tennis Court Lighting - Peer Review Los Altos Hills, CA We agree with lighting fixture selection and we have found it suitable for the application. O��o 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. Daffy 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 EXHIBIT C Wu Acoustics IIWO Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club s(lomnie@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 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 50dBA during day hours (8am — l Opm weekdays, 9am -- lOpm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, IOpm — 9am weekends). figure 1: hlap of ciu ) (t N.C. surroiuicing areas 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 Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 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. Figure 2. Court courts are to be lighted At 4:00pin on Thursday, February 21, 2012; Town of Los Altos Hills staff took sound measurements along the club's northeastern property line at Roble Ladera Road. At this time, they mcasuced 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, an l 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 Iron -2 nearby roads. i j 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 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 - 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 (95) 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. i. 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.mei-wu.com The 30 -minute -averaged frequency content measured at Station t 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 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. so �70 Ga 60 a 50 `--� a 40 30 m 20 - Lmin - Lmax an 10 -Leq 0 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 t a 50 CO 1 45 N LU 40 c Leq 35 o Lave 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 I% 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 carves that surpass 50dBA are the LI, L5, and LIO 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / o!ww.niei-v/u.corn 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 CV 45 c 40 M C: 0 35 n L --- Ll L5 ----- L10 L50 --- L90 --- - L95 - - L99 - --•-- Leq 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Figure 7: Station I baseline A•weighted percentile measurements over lime. !l. ,Skiziort 2 Statim 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 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 z 70 > 60 S0 I \/�------- 40 1l—� 30 � -- Lmin c 20 Lmax 7 10 -- leq 0 — --r- - ---T —r---- 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. 80 075 70 m 65 m 60 55 W CL` 50 'a � 45 0 N 40 65 s m 60 v a 55 w C- 50 -- — Leq ° Lave 45 — - 15:30 15:35 15:35 15:40 15:45 15 :50 15:55 time Figure 9: Station 2 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time. L1 LS -- -- LSO L50 - L90 --- WS - L99 Leq 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Figure 10: Station 2 baseline A-6veighted percentile noise levels over time W. StUI%Un 3 Station 3 measurements showed unweighted sound levels (Figure 11) 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. 90 280 20 a 60 d 5o 40 v 30 a C 20 — Lmin ,OA 10 — Lmax 0 — Leq 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency MVA Project 13026 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 6 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mel-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 a � 55 c 50 y a` a c 0 45 70 65 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. u I 55 / � 50 45 -- Ll LS -- — L10 L50 L90 — — L95 --- L99 Leq 40 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 13 Station 3 baseline .A -weighted percentile noise levels over time B. Terinls 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: l 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. 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 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. Maximtun levels reached nearly 80dB, but these high measurements were due to the passing street traffic. 90 g80 ,6-70 - 60 v J 50 40 w 30 L 20 - Lmin C: 10 - Lmax Leg 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure 13: 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 over time. 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 Q= 55 L 50 7J J 41 45 G/ a 40 C 7 O `n 35 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 15: Station I 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 8 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 70 C< 60 a 50 w N N a 40 Ll L5 Llo LSO 30 ,--- L90 L95 L99 -- Leg 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 16: Station I A -weighted percentile noise levels pith tennis courts, over time. 11. Siation Station 2 measurements were dominated by constant 1-280 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 50clB 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 170 CT 60 d so -- 40 30 N d a` 20 - Lmin 10 - Lmax o - Leq 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.IdBA. 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 9 e m 55 X1 50 N N 45 Leq Lave V) 40 -----,- 9:50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 1010 time Figure 18: Station 2 A -weighted noise levels %pith tennis courts, over time. _ so 70 C! P 6J m � J j 50 / N n 40 ° Ll 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 %ith tenni; courts, over time. W. Stalion 3 Station 3 noise levels were again dominated by constant 1-280 traffic, periodic Roble Ladera Road traffic, and periodic air traffic. The tennis Courts were audible in the farm 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 Lip to 70dBA caused by the close -passing traffic on Roble Ladera Road. so 70 60 W 50 Z 40 d 30 N 20— a` Lmin 10 —max — Leq .°n 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 Mel Wu Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 10 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mel-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 << 55 50G a — — Leq o' Lave " 40 10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time Figure 21: Station 2 A -weighted noise levels kith tennis courts, over time. 70 < 60 s0 N c 40 a — Ll L5 L10 --- L50 'o L90 - - L95 - - L99 — - Leq ^ 30 -- r---r----z— --r- 10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time Figure 22. Station 2 A -weighted percentile noise levels "ith 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 — l0p1n weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (IOpm — 8am weekdays; lOpm — 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. 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 M EO 70 m m a 60 a c0 .r 40 {,l Table l: 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 Summar} of 30-minute-avcraoed measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions -o- Lmax - 0 Ll - L5 L10 - �- LSO - �- L90 - - L95 t L99 -l-- 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.mei-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 M EO 70 m m a 60 a c0 .r 40 {,l Table l: 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 Summar} of 30-minute-avcraoed measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions -o- Lmax - 0 Ll - L5 L10 - �- LSO - �- L90 - - L95 t L99 -l-- 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.mei-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 Ligbting 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 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 (1 Omph 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 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 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 lawrence_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 MJVA report sites noise measurements between 8:50 a. in. 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 primacy goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended hours ludo the night!. " Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quant, e.1risling ambient noise levels during the hours of interest (e.g. 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Measure one fill 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 f om 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 I-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 CSR's peer review, that "[n]oise from tennis activity was not measured," is incorrect. 2.a. Station #1 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 I The maximum number of people on the courts during extended evening hour; 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, nor does the Club anticipate having such events in the future. In fact, to assure that these types of exhibitions, tournaments, etc. doa4 happen, a prohibition could simply be put into the Club's Conditional Use Permit Further, the Club does not have any areas with "stadiom" seating or viewing areas for large numbers ofpcople. USTA league matches would be possible with 5 lit tennis courts, and, at maximum, such LISTA 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). Tberefore, 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 #2 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-time 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 larger 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 club 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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. GSA'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. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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. Li — Monday afternoon measured noise level L2 — Saturday morning measured noise level La — 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) ni — 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 Ll 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 (Li and L2) include contributions of both ambient and tennis noise, the following basic equations apply. Ll = 10 loglo HOIO + n1101o1 La L2 = 10 10910 (1010 + n2101 ) Therefore, the total tennis noise level LT at a particular location, due to n players on the courts, is given by the following. n >2L 1 �i LT = 1010g10( ni (1010 — —1010) n2 — r r MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com To: CC: From: Date: Subject: Mei Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club Larry Russell, Fremont Hills Country Club Gabriel Messingher, Mei Wu Acoustics Jeff Irwin, Mei Wu Acoustics Mei Wu, Mei Wu Acoustics May 30, 2014 sdomnie@fremonthills.com lawrence_charles@msn.com gabriel@mei-wu.com jeff@mei-wu.com meiwu@mei-wu.com 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 28h, 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:OOpm and 8:3Opm, 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 Nor118 type -1 precision sound level meter, calibrated on-site with a Norsonic Norl251 calibrator. Figure I — measurement locations for evening ambient noise, May JW WISA 74&. , 2014 (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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security Charles M. Salter, PE David R. Schwind FAES Eric L. Broadhurst, PE Philip N_ Sanders, LEED AP Thomas A. Schindler. PE Anthony P. Nosh, PE Cnstino L. Mryar Joson R. Duty, PE Durand R. Begouk, PhD FAES Joseph G. D'Angelo Thomas J. Corbett. CTS Eric A. Yee Joshua M. Roper. PE. LEED AP Peter K. Hoist, PE, LEED AP Ethan C. Salter, PE, LEED AP Thomas D. Keller, CDT Craig L. GAian, RCDD Lloyd B. Ranolo Alexander K. Salter. PE Jeremy L. Decker, PE Rob Hammond, PSP, NICET III Michael S Chae Andrew 1. McKee Poul R. BJlmgs Valerie C. Smith Enka A. Fredenck Benjamin D. Piper Elisabeth S. Kelson Joshua J. Harrison Bnon C. Wourms Shanna M- SulWan Amanda G. Fkgbbe Ryan G. Raskop, LEED AP aego Hernandez Ryan A. Schofield Jamal Kmon Brian J. Good Heather A.Saher Dee E. Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Marva De Vear - Noordzee Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmer Jodessa G. Cortez Susan E. Lonergan Courtney H. Vlneys Erin D. Gorton Megan C. Santos 13 February 2014 Cynthia Richardson Town of Los Altos Hills cdchardson(a)losaltoshills.ca.gov EXHIBIT D Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA CSA Project: 14-0053 Dear Cynthia: 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco. CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 w .crnsolter.com We have completed our peer review of the acoustical study prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics (MWA). The subject study was to evaluate the potential impact to neighbors resulting from extended hours of tennis play at night made possible by a new lighting system. This letter summarizes our comments on the MWA analysis for the subject project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The MWA report does not adequately address the acoustical impact for the following reasons: • Existing nighttime noise levels were not presented • Noise from tennis activity was not presented • The study does not address noise from possible worst-case scenarios REPORT EXCEPTIONS TAKEN 1. 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. to 4:45 p.m. These measurement times are not relevant to the primary goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended hours [into the night]." Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quantify 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. 2. 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 discernible above the other ambient noise." At Station 2, "measurements were dominated by constant I-280 traffic." And at Station 3 "were again dominated by constant I-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. 3. Potential Noise Impact — The MWA report only measures real-time 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. Fremont Tennis Club Peer Review 13 February 2014 Acoustical Consulting 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. Eric A. Yee Principal Consultant 1014-02-10 Fremont Tennis pub Peer Review FAY/eay Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco. CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.3970454 www.crosaher.com Charles M. Salter ASSOCIA-ES INC �_haries M. 3431Ter ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 2 June 2014 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Audiovisual Son Francisco, CA Telecommunications Cynthia Richardson 94104 Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security crichardsonNosaltoshills.ca.00v IF 415.397.0454 www.crosolter.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M. Solter, PE CSA Project: 14-0053 David R. Schwind FAES Eric L. &oo&wrst. PE Dear Cynthia: Philip N. Sander-, LEED AP Thomas A. Schindler. PE The most recent acoustical study from Mei Wu Acoustics measured the ambient noise between the Anthony P. Nash, PE Cnst,noL.M,yor 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. Begouh. NO, FAES Joseph G. DAng.lo Based on other tennis court studies we have performed, the average noise level from a singles match Thomas J. Corbett CTS on one tennis court is 54 dBA when measured 50 feet from the court side line. The nearest neighbors c A. Enc A. Yee are almost 500 feet from the tennis courts. At this distance, we calculate the noise from a single match Joshua M. Roper, PE, AP Peter K. Holst, 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. Thomas D. Keller, CDT Crag L. GGhon, RCDD If all ten courts were occupied simultaneously, the worst-case average noise would increase by 10 Lloyd B. Ronal. decibels to 44 dBA when measured at the nearest property line. This assumes all people are playing at Alexander K. Scher, PE once. Even under these conditions, the tennis noise level is 6 decibels below the existing nighttime Jeremy L. Decker, PE Rob Hammond, PSP, NICET III background noise. At these noise levels tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and unless a lAchoel s chae person was specifically listening for tennis activity, these noises should go unnoticed. Andrew J. McKee Pad R. Billings Human voices are often the loudest source of noise during a tennis matching. Shouting and emotional Valerie C. Smith outbursts could be audible even at 500 feet. In our experience, the noise from tennis balls and shoes EnkoA.Fredenck squeaks is not nearly as offensive as coarse or rude language. The club should encourage good Benjamin D. Piper sportsman behavior using signage and friendly staff reminders of residences. EhsabethS Kelson Joshua 1. Harrison Brian C. Wourms This concludes our peer review for the subject project. Should you have any questions, please give us Shonna M. Sullivan a call. Amanda G. kgbw Ryan G. Roskop, LEED AP Sincerely, Diego Hernandez Ryon A. Schofield CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Jamal Kinn Boon J. Good `7 Heather A. Salter Dee E. Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Eric A. Yee Marva DoVeor - Noordzee Principal Consultant Elizabeth F. Trocker Jennifer G. Palmer Jodessa G. Cortez 1014-01-10 Fremont Tennis Club Veer Review Susan E. Lonwgan E4Y/edy Courtney H. Vmeys Erin D Gorton Megan C Santos EXHIBIT E n HRAHN TPANSPOPTATION 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,' I"nc. 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 FN 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. 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. Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study 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. 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 u Pewon Tidosuoitdtion (onsultdots. Inc. F ae l z g 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 Trim Generation Estimates Tennis Courts /a/ 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`h, 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. L>D n iu I Udoon f dnSPO f1011 (GGsu1tant5. Inc. Page 1 3 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study • Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road. The counts show 135 ® 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. r1 Conclusion Based on the analysis for the tennis court lighting project at the Fremont Hills Country Club, the project would generate up to 17 new trips per hour when the lights were on. This calculates to 102 new daily 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 Dailv Traffic Volumes 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 U Iie><wn Traporidtion GnsuitdotS. Inc. Page 14 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Table 3 Table 4 f u PEXdgOO TldnspoltdtlOO \OIISURNS. Inc. Page I s Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Analvsis LEGEND = Project Site Location = Study Segment Figure 1 Site Location and Study Segments MAW NORTH ""SOY Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Anal LEGEND = Project Site Location = Study Segment Figure 2 xx(xx)=ADT(HourlyTrips) Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .. HIMON NORTH aot m sem. EXHIBIT F LVISI,,Thal Moves Your Community Transportation Consultants April 21, 2014 Scott Domnie General Manager Fremont HillsCountryClub 12889 Viscaino Place Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Via Email only: sdomnie0fremonthills.com Subject: Peer Review of Hexagon Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills Country Club in Los Altos Hills Dear Mr. Domnie: 1. }, TJKM Transportation Consultants has performed this peer review of the Traffic Analysis for the tits 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 oyerrestimation of the additional traffic that would result with the project, as described below. Significant;Overstaterxllent of Traffic Added with Project Ndnibet`ol f 'Additional -14ours During Winter Months Via En,;ii n:• The TIA assumes that with the proposed addition of recreation court lighting at five of the Club's eirsiiingtennis tourts,,playing�houf-s;would.be�extendea-tQ:, LO,OQ.p:rp,,th�oughou;the;year,instead of ending whgn,darlmes;karriye.s m,the;eyening-onder -the existing corkditjons. t6 TIA also incorrectly assumes those extended playing hours would start at 4:00 p.m. during winter months. Pleasanton 48. ed,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 Pleasanton, CA 94588-2798 TJKM IndePendentlY reviewed data for Los. Altos Hill 925.463:0611 . s on sunset times, th8.r_laroug. 92s.463.3690 fax found that;the,earliest,sunset time was 4:$,I p.m.,,which occurs from N, (:! ber.3Qtk rough Fresno December, l4� Under. typical, conditionsR,suffcient light .remains for..at,jeast 10.to 15.;mihutes 516 W. Shaw Avenue aftersunset to.continue.playing.tennis,..which extends existing court.us6 until a few minutes;after suite200 mon the. earliest; sunsetda s m,Qecember.., ,Staff at Fremont Hills Count CI b has Fresno. CA P. Y. ..ry „_ 4.. , .,.. •r: , ..., 93704-2515 confirmed. that tennis play typically continues. past 5:00, p.m. at that,time of .year ,,Tbis.mgaRs.,that SS932S.7530 559.221 A940 fax tennis members. currently leave after 5:00 p.m, on the earliest sunset days in December. Sacramento Hgvv.,ever,:the TIA-assumes. that tennis_members.,currently,leave before 5:00 p.m. during December 980 Ninth Street and,January. . 161h Floor ' Sacramento. CA' ,: 95814-2736 fhe TIA afso;assumes that wEth the addition'of Iigfits,'tennis members would start arriving as early 916.449.9095 as4:00�p.m,.Ouring winterimonths •for the.new.extended,:hours of play.; _However,staff at Frempnt Santa Rosa hlills,Country Club states that tennis players.typicallyarriv..e no,, more. than IO.minutesahead of,,.., 1400 N. Dutton Avenue sant 21 their start.of.play. Based on the information presented in the previous;Qaragraph, the:new Santa Rosa, CA extended hours of playvrith .the addit' n.of •lights would start after 5: 95401-4643 00 p.m:.during the.earliest. 707.575.5800 surj�set.days in December. Therefore, -tennis members. would typically, start arriving at.; 707.575.5888. fax approximately 5:00 p.m. for the new extended hours:of play on those earliest sunset days. tikm@gkm.com Assuming playing hours would end at 10:00_ p.m., the traffic analysis should assume only. five (5) . www.gkm.coin 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. 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 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 Ist • 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 Sth until mid-August 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 I st 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 5th 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 Scott Domnie 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 Viscalno 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 rhayyood0tik,T m.com . Very truly yours, Richard K. Haygood, PE, TE Director of Traffic & Multimodal Studies J:IJURISDICTIOMOLos Altos HillAftemont Hills CCUR 042114 Traffic Study Peer Review.docx ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO OUTDOOR LIGHTING FOR PROPERTIES WITH A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF PRIVATE RECREATION AREA (RA -PR). WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club has applied for a modification to its Conditional Use Permit to allow to allow lighting on five of its ten tennis courts; WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club is designated Private Recreation Area (RA - PR) in the Town's adopted General Plan, and is the only property designated as Private Recreation Area (RA -PR) in the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinance does not allow the lighting of tennis courts on any properties and does not distinguish between public and private recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinance is necessary in order to approve the modification to the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Fremont Hills Country Club; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning and Site Development Ordinance amendment to permit lighting of tennis courts under certain conditions would only apply to properties with a General Plan designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area) and Fremont Hills Country Club is the only property within the Town of Los Altos Hills with this designation; and WHEREAS, the property designated RA -PR is greater than 17 acres, with tennis courts located at least 275 feet from the nearest adjacent home; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would only permit tennis court lighting that includes cutoff shields that minimize light spillage off the court and that is located no less than 120 feet from any property line; and WHEREAS, recreational facilities are only permitted in the Residential -Agricultural Zoning District subject to a Conditional Use Permit, which can include specific conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, as a condition to the modification of the Fremont Hills Country Club Conditional Use Permit, the proposed lights will be timer controlled and will not be allowed to be turned on from before sunset and after 10:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed pursuant . to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states that the private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility; and WHEREAS, properties with the General Plan designation of RA -PR provide important recreation facilities for the community; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS. Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby makes the following findings: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2. The record for these proceedings, upon which this ordinance is based, 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 part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on , 2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2). 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located and available for review at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA. 4. The proposed Zoning and Site Development Ordinance amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states that the private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility and because the 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." None of the amendments will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. i Page 3 of 6 SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as follows (with additions indicated in double underline). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. 1. AMENDMENT OF ZONING CHAPTER OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Section 10- 1.703 of Article 7 (Residential -Agricultural District (R -A)) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions indicated in double underline: 10-1.703 Conditional uses and structures (R -A). The following uses may be established in the Residential -Agricultural District subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, and the issuance of a permit thereof pursuant to the provisions of this chapter: (a) Public libraries; (b) Churches, other places of worship, and convents, but not including funeral chapels or mortuary chapels. The number of residents of a convent shall not exceed three and five -tenths (3.5) times the estimated maximum number of lots permitted.by the provisions of this chapter on such property as is devoted. exclusively to convent use; (c) House trailers or other vehicles may not be used as primary or secondary dwellings. A temporary permit for the use of a house trailer as a dwelling for not more than thirty (30) days in any calendar year may be issued by the City Clerk upon certification that the use pursuant thereto shall be by a bona fide nonpaying guest, but in all events applicable setback requirements shall be strictly enforced; (d) Recreational facilities, including recreational or community center buildings and grounds for games and sports, except those customarily earned on primarily for profit; (e) Large family day care homes. Large family day care homes which provide care, protection and supervision of seven (7) to twelve (12) children, inclusive, (including children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home) in the provider's own home, for periods of less than twenty-four (24) hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, pursuant to State regulations, shall be granted a conditional use permit under the following circumstances and procedure: (1) Only one large family day care home may be located on a parcel; (2) The Zoning Administrator shall review and decide the application for a use permit; (3) Not less than ten (10) days prior to the date on which the decision will be made on the application, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice of the proposed use by mail or delivery to all owners shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within a one hundred (100) foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed large family day care home. No hearing on the application shall be held before a decision is made, unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected person; y Page 4 of 6 (4) The use permit shall be granted on reasonable conditions regarding traffic, parking and noise control and on the condition that the home comply with the regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal relating to large family day care homes; (5) The applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in accordance with this chapter. (f) Public schools where designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; (g) Private schools where designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; (h) Public utility and service uses: (1) No conditional use permit or building permit shall be required for any public utility distribution or transmission line, provided, however, the proposed routes of all electrical distribution lines carrying current in excess of fifteen (15) kilovolts and the location of public utility structures requiring rights-of-way of thirty (30) feet or more in width shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the acquisition of rights-of-way therefor, and any construction thereon shall not be commenced until such approval shall have been received; and. (2) Service uses are those uses which are determined by the Council to be beneficial to the provision of emergency or public safety services (including but not limited to communications facilities, storage of vehicular and other equipment, materials and supplies for emergency use in protective work, the restoration of public facilities, and/or debris and wreckage clearance). (i)Fire stations; O)Police stations; (k) Town facilities; (I) Commercial stables in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title 6 of this Code and when deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission to meet the needs of the residents of the Town for stabling facilities. (m) Use of a single family residence building and accessory structures by a California nonprofit public benefit corporation qualified for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code for meetings and overnight accommodations relating to the charitable activities of the corporation; provided that: (1) The site (single parcel or combination of contiguous parcels) comprises a minimum of twenty-five (25) acres; and (2) A minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the site is secured to remain as open space and/or conservation areas for the period of time and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit issued in respect to such use. n) The use of artificial lighting maybe permitted for tennis courts on properties with a General Plan designation of Private Recreation Area (RA -PR). Lighting must be shielded so that the light source is not visible from off site and must be located no less than 120 feet from any propertv line. Page 5 of 6 2. AMENDMENT OF SITE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Sections 10-2.1002, 10-2.1004 and 10-2.1005 of Article 10 (Outdoor Lighting) of Chapter 2 (Site Development) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions indicated in double underline: 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. 10-2.1002 Recreation courts. No artificial lighting shall be permitted for tennis and other recreation courts, except as provided for in section 10-1.703(n). 10-2.1003 Swimming pools and spas. Artificial lighting of swimming pools and spas shall be permitted only under the following conditions: (a) Lights are placed beneath the surface of the water in the pool or spa to illuminate the water. (b) Other exterior lights 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. 10-2.1004 High intensity lighting prohibited. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited, except as provided for in section 10-1.703(n). 10-2.1005 Outdoor lighting—General. Outdoor lighting should use the minimum number and wattage lights which will 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 Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code). Additional lighting may be permitted where it is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area or as permitted by Section 10- 1.703n . SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. Page 6 of 6 If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of its passage. Within 15 days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the Los Altos Town Crier, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Mayor, John Radford ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 2288915.1 TOWN OF.LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov ATTACHMENT 3 LOSALTOS HH;LS 11 -ha MV V,i CALIFORNIA Outdoor Lighting Policy Approved by City Council -9/30/07 Amended by City Council -5/17/12 Amended by City Council - Date Code Sections and Fast Track Guide for New Residences: Article of Title 10 Chapter 2 of the Site Development Ordinance outlines criteria for outdoor lighting. In particular, Section 10-2.1005 indicates that outdoor lighting should use "the minimum wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light `sources "shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site." Goal IV (0) of the Fast;frack Guide for New Residences suggests that exterior lights be carefully placed to pr�y��it l%ght shining onto neighboring houses. The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances lirnit1ighting within the property line setbacks to "driveway light fixtures, limited to one fixture on each side of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per lot," but additional fixtures may be approved if necessary for safety. Intent: The purpose of Zoning and Site Development Ordinances and the Fast Track Guide regarding outdoor lighting is to assure that the open and peaceful character of the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, lighting does not intrude on the privacy of neighbors, light pollution is reduced, and the glare is minimized onto adjacent properties. The intent of this policy is to clarify the types and numbers of lighting fixtures that are generally consistent with the ordinances and the Fast Track Guide, yet to allow flexibility for additional lighting when it is necessary for safety purposes or where it is not visible from off the site. Policy: 1. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to providing for one light per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at double doors or garage doors, etc., and additional lights only where the Planning Director or Planning Commission determines they are needed for safety. 2. Pathway and driveway lighting should be restricted to low -height fixtures and should be spaced the maximum distance apart which will still provide for safe use. In order to avoid a "runway" appearance, it is recommended that lighting be placed on only one side of the driveway or walkway, or alternate from one side to the other. Recessed louvered lights are suggested for walkways and steps. 3. Light fixtures should be shielded or downlights, so that the light source is not visible from off site. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. 4. Downlighting from trees is acceptable if provided for safety or for outdoor use areas, where minimal in number, and where the light source is not visible from off site. 5. Uplighting of trees is not allowed, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the number of such lights are minimal and the glow of the uplighting would not be visible from off site. 6. Spotlights should be limited in number, and directed away from clear view of neighbors. Shielding of spotlights with shrouds or louvers is suggested. 7. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited, except as provided in Municipal Code Section 10-1.703(nl. 8. Lighting within the property line setbacks is limited to two driveway light fixtures e*, for the purpose of locating and identifying the site. No lights are allowed in side or rear yard setback areas, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 9. The Planning Commission and/or staff may allow lighting different from that outlined above when the proposed outdoor lighting is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area, or where the size of the property and/or extensive screening will assure that the light source is not visible from off site. 10. Artificial lighting is not permitted for tennis courts or other recreation/sports courts, except as provided in Municipal Code Section 10-1.703(nl. 11. Pool lighting is allowed under the following conditions: • Lights are placed beneath the surface of the water in the pool or spa to illuminate the water • Other exterior lights used to illuminate the surrounding area use the minimum number and wattage of lighting which will safely illuminate the area • No direct light is cast beyond the immediate area of the pool Definitions • Glare - Lighting entering the eye directly from luminaries or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility. • Light Pollution - Any adverse effect of artificial light including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment. ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB LOCATED AT 2889 VISCAINO PLACE WHEREAS, The existing Conditional Use Permit allows operation of the Fremont Hills County Club at 12889 Viscaino Place; and WHEREAS, that Conditional Use Permit includes condition of approval number 8, which specifically prohibits tennis court lighting; and WHEREAS, the Fremont Hills Country Club has requested an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to construct outdoor lighting on five of their ten existing tennis courts; and WHEREAS, Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.703(d) provides that recreational facilities may be permitted in the Residential -Agricultural District pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit including specific conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed tennis court lighting uses a specialized recreational lighting design using lights that have cutoff shields that only shine down onto the court itself with little lighting spillage off the court; and WHEREAS, the proposed lights will be timer controlled and will not be allowed to be turned on from before sunset and after 10:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element Goal 2, policy 2.4 states that the private sector shall be encouraged to supply specialized recreation facilities that are not deemed a Town responsibility; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing to consider the revisions to the Conditional Use Permit at its meeting of June 24, 2014; and 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 Page 2 of 3 (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 part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on , 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 proposed use or facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; The existing private recreation facility use of this site provides a recreation source for residents in the Town. The property operates under a Conditional Use Permit and has a General Plan Designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). The existing tennis courts have been in place since 1966 and are a compatible use with the on-site environment and for the proposed tennis court lighting. Parking demand for the project is not anticipated to have any negative impact on the site. Increased traffic demands meet the level of service anticipated in the Town's General Plan. 2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 1, or will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area; The proposed project will not change the existing uses already in operation on site. The site is of adequate size (17 acres) and shape to accommodate the new light fixtures on the existing tennis courts. The property maintains a General Plan Designation of RA -PR (Private Recreation Area). Existing topography, perimeter landscaping, dark court playing surfaces, shielded fixtures and tennis court screen -fencing will buffer the proposed lighting effects from surrounding properties and therefore will be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; The site has access directly to Viscaino Place which provides connection to Viscaino Road and a second entrance to Roble Ladera Road. Parking is available on the site (147 spaces). The Traffic Study for this project found that there will be a maximum increase of 102 daily trips in the winter months as a worst case scenario. The resulting daily traffic volumes were compared to those identified as typical in the General Plan. Based on the analysis by the Traffic Engineer, all of the roadways segments would remain within the typical volume levels described in the General Plan as acceptable. Page 3 of 3 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Project conditions including lighting, traffic and noise have been analyzed and found to have little or no impacts to ensure that nearby properties are not adversely impacted by the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills resolves that Conditional Use Permit is hereby amended as indicated in the revised Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Attachment 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective on (DATE). PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2014 ATTEST: City Clerk 2288917.1 Mayor John Radford 0 - ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATIONS AT FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 12889 VISCAINO PLACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The continuation of this Conditional Use Permit shall be issued to Fremont Hills Country Club for the property designated as Parcel 175-55-46, 12889 Viscaino 'Place (17.03 gross acres). 2. The in number of horses to be kept or maintained.at this facility at any one time is 55. 3. The maximum floor area and development area allowed under this permit are as follows: MDA at 200,683sq. ft. MFA at 30,572 sq. ft. 4. There shall be twenty-four (24) hour supervision of said premises by a competent attendant who is knowledgeable about horse care and authorized to see that the conditions of this Use Permit are met. 5. A Business License from the Town shall be required for the both the Country Club and the stable operations, and shall be renewed annually on January first, as long as all conditions of this Use Permit have been met. 6. Staff, 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 be 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. Planning Commission and City Council. 7. All requirements of the Santa Clara. County Health Department and Palo Alto Animal Control shall be complied with throughout the life of this permit: 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 is 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. 8. 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 ,. uft lighting is oei fl .ally pr -et linea 9. Tennis court lights are permitted to be installed on court numbers 4-8. All tennis court lights shall be located a minimum of 120 feet from any property lines. 10. The proposed light fixtures shall be the Visionaire Advantage 1,000 -watt metal halide tennis court luminaires or equivalent mounted at 22 feet above the court surface on dark colored poles. All tennis court light fixtures shall be fully shielded and equipped with light cutoff shields in order to eliminate glare and light spillage beyond the tennis court fencing. 11. Tennis courts that are not being actively played on shall not be lighted. Motion detectors or a similar self -controlling means shall be required. 12. 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. 13. All tennis court fencing shall maintain dark mesh backdrop covers and dark court surfaces. 14. There shall be no expansion of the tennis spectator facilities. 15. The club shall monitor tennis activities to ensure that loud or unnecessary noise is not generated by such activities. 16. All :unpaved driveways, parking areas and horse riding areas shall be maintained in a manner sufficient to control dust to a level 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. Fremont Hills Country Club shall maintain 147 parking spaces (108 in the lower'lot and 39 in the upper lot), shall provideadequate off-street parking for all members and guests, and shall direct traffic to other facilities if an overflow should occur. The 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. 21. The maximum number of memberships to the Club shall be limited to 500 member families. 22. 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 showing enlargement of the parking areas to accommodate additional parking on site. 23. 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. 24. 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 the 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. 25. 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 26. 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. 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). 27. 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 28. 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 barn 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 unitshall 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. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT .CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ADDITION OF TENNIS COURT LIGHTING ON FIVE OF THE TEN EXISTING COURTS AT FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 12889 VISCAINO PLACE File# 11-13-MISC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. No other modifications . to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the new lighting fixtures prior to beginning any work on-site. 3. The proposed light fixtures shall be the Visionaire Advantage 1,000 -watt metal halide tennis court luminaires mounted at 22 feet above the court surface on dark colored poles. The fixtures shall be fully shielded. 4. The club shall monitor tennis activities to ensure that loud or unnecessary noise is not generated by such activities. 5. There shall be no expansion of the tennis spectator facilities. MITIGATION MEASURES 6. 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. 7. MM - Aesthetics — 2) Courts not being actively played shall not be lighted. Motion detectors or some similar self -controlling means shall be required. 8. 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. 9. MM - Aesthetics — 4) All tennis court fencing shall maintain dark mesh backdrop covers and dark court surfaces. 10. 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. Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department at least two weeks prior to final Building Department inspection. Please call (650) 941-7222 to schedule the inspection. The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not "requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. ATTACHMENT 6 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 installationoftennis 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 :wil.ltbe 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 Iighted 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 +3171 , 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. K 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 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) Fence with screen +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. +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 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. Vii/ ;. •°r't �_ 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). WO 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. OQROFESS/O�\ R BFi�, Ey m r No. 12078 Exp 12-31-13 FCTRIQ` OF Mlf1 � 31 BENYA BURNETT 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 toned, neutral, or cool colored. 15-60 Full Sized Fluorescent White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored. 40-110 Light Emitting Diode White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 25-100 Metal Halide White light; can be warm toned, neutral or cool colored 50-120 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 110,000' 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 1/z 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 BENYA LIGHTING DESIGN 1 612 OLYMPIC DRIVE DAVIS, CA 95616.6663 WWW.BENYABURNETr.COM PAGE 2 OF 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.xls 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. 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 AQROFESSlp�w\ �ES R BFB ty 2 No. 12078 Exp 12-31-15 \OF CAUF�� M, �. k VISIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance In A Whole New Light . r.' --`.Y: ,_n:. k VISIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance In A Whole New Light . r.' --`.Y: V-r T-n-ri �ti, g irl "s ting 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 high performance fixture designed specifically for tennis with up to triple the light compared to other court fixtures. It is now possible to have smoothly lit 150 footcandle averages and 80x/0 lumen retention over time with only eight 1000 watt fixtures! Utilizing the unique VISIONT" 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 NEiGH30R-�00D-FRIENDLYFUICUTOFF 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 25% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 450 watt Advantage fixtures offer improved light and 55% less energy than most competitor's 1000 watt fixtures 3 FULL CUTOFF T4T REFLECTOR FULL CUTOFF m 5.0-0- N N N Q O N C^^ O II M VI M m D� U) M 0 Nn o 0 z o n� O lD 0 o m3�� cnO°�' '° a) 0' o s �D 0) o" cD :3 O M %< 7 N :3 =r M -C. d :3O a- fD'(L2 fD a• O '� 3 0 � N 3 O O N O N. N'p N C 3• d O '" m Q N m .r a:3 :3 n 3m 0 0 N n a D O C N ca ,. Q CL N CI fD n� < O _ C '� C+ -w 3 �' O c• O to N O (a O S N�•< lD M' n C f3D O > > (A :3 M .2 CL 0 = •a 0� 3 c -< 1 '`°3° 03< N O ,c 3 CL N_. !O!1 5 , to c C fD ids �cn 3 toC M D _ .+ M _ 7 _ O (n 1 U3 m n m _ -w =r O O ,?y -v =+ to 0 Q U3 (D d Pw rt d lD �' O f0 0 N 3 FULL CUTOFF T4T REFLECTOR FULL CUTOFF 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 J Ya Advantage Tennis Court Fixture. Our light levels more than tripled, increasing from 30 to 45 foot candles to 180 foot candles at the net, 177 at the service line, and 129 .� foot candles behind the base line after •• the new fixtures were installed. Our members and instructors are ecstatic with our lighting upgrade. I know 3 that the level of play and fun at our club N will increase with these new fixtures" All, z Q Kim Perino, Director of Tennis Riviera Tennis Club, Pacific Palisades, CA T• • The Advantage luminaire features a unique contemporary design inspired by the sleek styling of a European sports car. The new patent -pending Visionrm Tennis Court Reflector System is unlike any other, providing more light per watt than ever before. The flat lens, vertical lamp, IES full cutoff luminaire is Dark Sky certified to restrict light trespass, glare and fight pollution for neighborhood friendly outdoor lighting. The low profile, aerodynamic -shaped housing is available with several different, unique, mounting arms for tennis applications. Adurable polyester powder coat finish is a variety of colors will compliment any sports facility. Computerized precision machinery, quality materials, and silicone Basket- ing ensure manufacturing to the highest industry standards. Model No. Optics ADV MH, PS 0 450 (450) (M) (P) o ADV -2o Tennis Flat Glass (T4T) Wattage Source n 400 (400) MH, PS 0 450 (450) (M) (P) 0 750 (750) � a 875 (875) o Bronze 13 1000 (1000) MH - Metal Halide 'Reduced Envelope PS - Pulse Start Metal Halide Lamp on 1000w o Black ---------- 1 c I I I i ^ I I KV I � 'appro: be based en heaviest eonfipraem vdpsckal ft ADV -2 1 2.8 1 30" 1 20.5" 1 11" 1000w 1 57 The Advantage fixture's unique, patent -pending Tennis Court reflector is designed specifically for today's levels of play and is the ideal fixture for tennis clubs, public parks, universities, schools, and residential courts. With the option of higher light levels or lower energy costs this industry-leading fixture offers substantial advantages over traditional lighting systems. The Advantage is available with the new Pulse Start Metal Halide lamp in 1000 or 875 watts; as well as the latest energy saving 750, 450, and 400 watt lamps. Utilizing the latest in techology Pulse Start Metal Halide lamps provide more light per watt over a longer period of time, better color consistency, and smooth, even light for any court facility. Voltage Mounting Finish a a - 13 480 . a 13 Slip Fit Arm o Bronze (5) (SFA) (BZ) 0 M.Tap 'Consult factory for o Black bolt -on and davit arms (BI() (ti) o White (WH) o Green (GN) Options o Back Shield (BS) 0 4 -Sided Shield (4SS) 4FT 4FT 4FT—•� t EPA: 1.5 EPA: 2.6 TNSI TNS100 Tennis Court mounting arm is constructed of 1'/" x 3" rect- angular steel tubing. This arm can be made to slip over the following tenon (or pole) sizes: 3'/2"0, 4"0, & 4%"0. TNS100 is available in the ° TNS100 following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1800, Triple 90°, Triple 1200, and Quad. 4FT on EPA: 1.5 l ? .P -!- TNSI01-Sl 4FT Model No. 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, 3%"0, 4"0, & 4'/'0. TNS101 ° TNS1o1 is available in the following pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 180°, Triple 90°, Triple 1200, and Quad. 4FT ` EPA: 2.2 TNS 102-S I TNSI or ❑ Single (S1) ❑ 3-%" dia. (3.5) ❑ Bronze (BZ) n Double (D2) ❑ 4" dia. (4) ❑ Black (BK) o Triple 901 (T9) ❑ 4-'/" dia. (4.5) 13 White (VIM) n Triple 1200 (T1) o Custom (CC) o Green (GN) ❑ Quad (QD) o Custom (CC) 4FT EPA: 2.2 TNS101-D2 Configuration I Pole or Tenon Size I Finish C3 Single (S1) a 3" dia. (3) G Bronze (BZ) o Double (D2) 0 3-'/2" dia. (3.5) o Black (BK) o Triple 900 (T9) a 4" dia. (4) ❑ White (WH) o Triple 1200 (T1) n 4-'/=' dia. (4.5) o Green (GN) o Quad (QD) o Custom (CC) — � 4FT 4FT EPA: 3.8 TNS102-D2 TNS102 Tennis Court Theme mounting arm is constructed of 1'/2"x 3" Model No. 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 ❑ TNS102 (or pole) sizes: 3%2"0, 4"0, & 4'/2"0. TNS102 is available in the fol- lowing pole mounting configurations: Single, Double 1800, Triple 900, Triple 120°, and Quad. Configuration Pole or Tenon Size I Finish ❑ Single (S1) ❑ 3-'/�" dia. (3.5) ❑ Bronze (BZ) ❑ Double (D2) ❑ 4" dia. (4) ❑ Black (BK) o Triple 900 (T9) 0 4-'/2" dia. (4.5) n White (VVH) o Triple 1200 (Ti) a Green (GN) 13 Quad (CID) 1 1 13 Custom (CC) ViS1ONAIRE LIGHTING Performance in A Whole New Light 19645 Rancho Way Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220 Tel: 310.512.6480 or 877.977.5483 Fax: 310.512.6486 www.visionairelighting.com/tennis or visit us on our main website at www.visionairelighting.com Fixture A B C Max. Watts Lbs 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"m 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. ADV -2 Tennis 400 PS 120 Slip Fit Arm Tennis Green Flat Glass (T4T) (400) (1) (SFA) (GN) 450 PS 208 Davit Arm Black Reduced envelope (2) (DA) (BK) (450) 240 Adjustable Knuckle 750 PS (3) Mount (750) (KM) 277 875 PS (4) (875) 480 1000 MH, PS (5) (1 000) (M), (P) M -Tap 'Multi -Tap ballast wired at 277 V unless specified (6) 347 (8) MH - Metal Halide PS - Pulse Start Metal Halide VISIONAIRE LIGHTING erformance In A Whore New light 36 4 -Sided Light Shield (4SS) Back Shield (BS) Bird -B -Gone (BBG) 'Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket. See Mounting Arms section. 19645 Rancho Way • Rancho Dominguez. CA • 90220 Tel (310) 512-6480 • Fax (310) 512.6486 www visionairelighting com Housing • All housings are manufactured using technologically advanced computer numerical control (CNC) machinery. Precision sheared and formed, corrosion -resistant aluminum. • The computerized CNC machinery enables all Advantage housings to be constructed quickly, efficiently and in adherence with exacting ISO 9002 standards. All external hardware is stainless steel. Lens and Door Assembly • Removable door assembly is CNC precision, sheared and formed from corrosion -resistant aluminum, with captive stainless steel fasteners. • The lens is a tempered, clear safety glass, secured by galvanized lens retainers, and sealed with silicone gasketing to provide complete weather and insect protection. Vision T" Optical System • Reflector is precision CNC cut and bent, multifaceted, segmented, highly efficient, 95% reflective aluminum. Available in a specialized T4T tennis reflector. • Tool -less reflector entry. Quali-Guard® Finish • The finish is a Quali-Guard® textured, chemically pretreated through a multiple stage washer, electrostatically applied, thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum of 3-5 millimeter thickness. Finish is oven -baked at 400 OF to promote maximum adherence and finish hardness. All finishes are available in standard and custom colors. • Finish is guaranteed for two (2) years. 4' EPA: 1 2 TNS100-S1 './ Slip fits over 23/8'0.D. Fixture with Arm 1 1111 - Mounting - Slip fit arm mount (SFA), davit arm (DA) or knuckle mount (KM) available. • Please see Mounting Arms section for a choice of tennis davit arm options, brackets and accessories. Electrical Assembly • All ballasts are premium -grade HPF regulating autotransformers. Ballast is capable of providing consistent lamp starting down to -20 OF. Available in: • Metal Halide (MH) • Pulse Start Metal Halide (PS) - Socket is glazed porcelain medium or mogul base with nickel - plated contacts, rated at 4 kV (5 kV for 1000 watt) and 600 V. Options • 4 -Sided light shield • Back shield • Bird -B -Gone Please consult factory for custom options. Listings '®M •Advantage is '&" listed, suitable for wet locations. • Dark -Sky Friendly®, full cutoff certified by the International Dark -Sky Association. • Q$A compliant. • Powder Coated ToughTM Vin° T • Vision TM Reflector System (U.S. Patent No. 7,213,948). EPA 2 4 t YISIONAIRE LIGHTING Performance In A Whole New Light TNS100-D2 TNS103 Davit Arm "Tennis mounting arms slip -fit over tenons or poles. available in single, double 1800, D90, D70, and quad. "Davit arm must be ordered with a Davit bracket. See Mounting Arms section. SINGLE COURT 60X120 •19.4 40.7 58,$ 71.44 67.3 70.6 69.4 6V 7i 59.3 43.6 721.p 31.5 70. 4 72.0 34.6 37.9 71. •115 •11 •131 •12 •124 •134 •111 •11 75.1 41.8 37.9 71.E •115 •11 •131 •12 •124 •134 •111 •11 75.2 41.'$ 31.4 69. 2 71.8 34.5 19.4 40.5 58.3 %1'.0 67.1 70.4 69.2 67.6 71.2 59.1 43.4 21.0 t--24Ft i 241Ft -i 19645 Rancho Way • Rancho Dominguez, CA • 90220 Tel (310) 512.6480 • Fax (310) 512.6486 WWW wsiona relighnng.com April 29, 2014 Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills, California ATTACHME angIn®C vag 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 (rEL) 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 q Y P 447 Sutter Street 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 Page 2 Regarding: Fremont Hills Country Club - Tennis Court Lighting - Peer Review Los Altos Hills, CA 1= �1 We agree with lighting fixture selection and we have found it suitable for C��11bsom9 the application. h1c. 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 ATTACHMENT S -AUJA Mao 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, v/ith 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. Baftround 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 Alton Hills Noise Ordinance states that noise frons "persons' may not exceed 50dBA during day hours (8am - l Opm weekdays, 9am - 10pm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm - 8am weekdays, lOpm - 9am weekends). urrounc mg areas The country club wishes to install lighting to allow later play on 5 of their 10 tennis courts (courts 44 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 Acoustics 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 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. 1k J�! 0 Fi'Zure 2. Court inyout; highlighted courts z: nghted At 4:00pm on Thursday. February 21, 2012; Town of Los Altos Hills staff took sound measurements along the club's northeastern property line at Roble Ladera Road. At this time, the; rz-casi+►ed a "prevailing" noise level of 55dBA, with maximum levels Leaching 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 r.oise 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 Procc—ss Sound [Tleiea•s were sea tip at 3 sfations (Figure 3); along the property lines nearest the tennis courts; on the north, east, and south sides of the courts. Station I was located on the property line betvmen 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 12530 Roble Ladera Road), and Station 3 was located on the property life betw-zen the chub 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. 4: 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com Measurement sets were taken using Norsonic Nor118 (type-1) and Cesva SC160 (type-2) sound level misters, 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- .minute-averaged third-octave band levels, and the equivalent A-weighted sound levels meast !�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 aad 9:20am (Station 1), between 9:50am and 10:20am (Station 2), and between I0:40arn anal 1 I :10«m (Station 3). .3. Me:auiremnt Results A. Baseline Measurements Station I baseline measureownt sets were taken on Monday, April 29, 2013; between 2:15pnz 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 (t5) 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 1-280 was moderately heavy, thought not congested. r. 'Stratiat I 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 Stich 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.mei-wu.com 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 70dB. The highest instantaneous measurements were taken daring the passing of road and air traffic, and these are the causes of the maximum levels shown. 80 670 60 50 J 43 L 20 — Lmin o' 10 — Leq N 0 '__�'�T ------ 16 T 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Fitkire 5: Station 1 baseline noise levels over audible frequency range, measured in third-octa%e 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 soured measurements integrated over a full 60 -second period. These levels remain nios ly below 50dBA, and result in a 30 -minute averacle of 46.2dBA. SS � s � 50 A /' I\J 45 a` 4G e -- Leq M Lave Ln 35 - - --- 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Pieure 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 Ll 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 I,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 LI0 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 / iAiww.nnei-wu.conn 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 a 60 55 > 50 m J 45 n 40 v c 0 35 30 -- L1 -- L5 - - L10 L50 L90 - -- L95 - - L99 ------ Leq 14:15 14:20 14:25 14:30 14:35 14:40 time Figure 7: Station I baseline A -weighted percentile measurements over time. i7. Sla ion 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 (Fio :re 8), with maximum levels reaching as high as 88dB due to passing street traffic. Levels were relatively constant in the lower frequency ranges, dropping offat frequencies above approximately 2kHz. 100 IE 90 80 z 70 60 40 0- 30 � -- Lmin c 20 — Lmax S 10 -- Leq ----r-r— -'r--- 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure 3: 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. 65 e C< 60 .o v " 55 J d N d C- 50 Leq o Lave N 45 15:.30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time Figute 9: Station 2 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time. 80 075 C 70 ii Z65 'J' 60 V 3.55 v a 5010 { C 45 I N 40 x — 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50 15:55 time F epre 10: SC,tion 2 baseline A -weighted percentile noise levels over time Ll 1.5 - -- L10 ---L50 ---.—L90 -- -- L95 L99 ---- Leq W..SUnion 3 Station 3 measurements showed unweighted sound levels (Figure 1 1) exceeding 5OdB at low frequencies (I OOHz and below), and existing at or below the 50dB mark in higher ranges. els 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 8OdB at some frequencies. 90 80 70cc v 60 d) 50 N 40 v 30 \ a 20 — Lmin 10 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 1-280 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 dLtring more than 50% of the total measurement duration. 60 a 0 55 v m 50 s 0. a c 0 1O 45 70 65 m 60 0 55 dI � 50 a 0 45 0 0 16:15 16:20 16:15 16:20 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Figure 12: Station 3 baseline A -weighted noise levels over time. Ll L5 — -- L10 L50 L90 — -- L95 --- L99 -- Leq 16:25 16:30 16:35 16:40 time Fisore 13 Station 3 baseline A-v:eiehted 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 1 1:10am (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 I 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. 90 880 ci 70 v —60 50 N 40 v 30 20 5—L min 10 max -- Leq 0 r --r 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency YiSwre 14: Station I 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 duLinfathat 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 in the equestrian area than anything else. Absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above other ambient noise during this measurement. a 60 55 c L 1\\ � 50 N / 5 45 J/ N d c 40 Leq 'o Lave 35 L- 8:50 - 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 15: Station I A -weighted noise levels with tennis courts, over time. MINA 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 70 C< 60 50 c E 40 -r a Ll L5 --. L10 L50 30 __. _ L90 L95 L99 Leg 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 time Figure 16: station I A-sseighted percentile noise levels ssith tennis courts, over time. it Stta!- o.i 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 !evels (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 cool ls. so a70 C6* 60 Z 50 40 K 30 \ N 41 a` 20 -- Lmin 10 Lmax °- LeG 0�-- 16 Hz 63 Hz 250 Hz 1.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 16.0 kHz frequency Figure 17. Station 2 noise levels ssith 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 55 a v a, 50 n E! 45 a --- Leq Lave 40 - ------- 9:50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20 time Figure 13Sta:ion 2 A-neighted noise levels %%ith tennis courts, over time _ so 70 { w EO > d J / So ; 40 Ll LS -- L10 L50 o L90 - - - L95 --- L99 - Le 30 -,-- Q — 9 50 9:55 10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:20 time Figure 19: Station 2 A -weighted percentile noise levels %%ith tenni; courts, over time. iii. S!, -Won 3 Station 3 noise levels were again dominated by constant 1-280 traffic, periodic Roble Ladera Road traffic, and periodic air traffic. The tennis courts were audible in the f nin 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 fi•equency 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-�' 50 40 30 \ a 20 — Lmin 10 -- Lmax 0 — Leq 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 ranee. 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 C< 55 50 G Y a 45 -- Leq o Lave Ln 40 30:40 50:45 10:50 50:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 time Figure 21: Station 2 A -weighted noise levels with tennis courts, over time. 70 Y m 60 so,- 40 1 -- Ll - L5 - L10 - -- LSO ' c L90 L95 - - L99 -- - •Leq ^ 30 - -•..--. --- -- -- — r--- - 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 — 10pm weekends) or 40dBA during night hours (10pm — 8am weekdays, lOpm — 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 follo,.ving 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 / ww+v.mei-wu.com 90 £0 a 70 m a v a 60 a cn .f 40 30 Table is Summary of 30-minute-uveraMl measurements Cr' �y Station 1, Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3, No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full F12ure 23 Summar% of 30 -minute -averaged measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions --o-- Lmax 'O- LI -s- LS LSO -� - L50 -s- L90 -s- L95 L99 --it--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. yUnder 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 Lade, a Rd.) Average Level: 52.2 dBA Average Level: 50.8 dBA —N` Peak Level: 65.5 dBA Peak Level: 65.2 dBA 90 £0 a 70 m a v a 60 a cn .f 40 30 Table is Summary of 30-minute-uveraMl measurements Cr' �y Station 1, Station 1, Station 2, Station 2, Station 3, Station 3, No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full No Tennis Courts Full F12ure 23 Summar% of 30 -minute -averaged measurements. A. Current Noise Conditions --o-- Lmax 'O- LI -s- LS LSO -� - L50 -s- L90 -s- L95 L99 --it--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. yUnder 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 L 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 (10mph 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.mel-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 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 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 lawrence_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 AlIVA report sites noise measurements between 8:50 ant. to 11:50 am. and again between 2:15 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. These measurements times are not relevant to the primatygoal ofthe report which is to "assess the noise impacts of►ennis courts' extended hours linto the night/. " Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels during the horns of interest (e.g. 6:00 p.m. to /0:00 p.m.). Measure one fill week to caphn•e 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 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 TheWA 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 #1 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 Ievel 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 I 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 F13CC. "The Club does not currently have high proille events, tournaments and exhibitions whea large audiences attend, nor 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 of people. 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 x2 —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 die Club on any night." MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 #2 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-time 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 larger 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 club 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 1 www.mei-wu.com 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. Tn 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. MWA Project 13026 Mei Wu Acoustics Report #2 - 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com 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 La, — 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) n1 — 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 Ll and L2 include all noise (ambient and tennis). • The calculated level LQ 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 = 10 log10 (riolo + n,1010 ) L2 = 1010910 (1010 + n210 0) Therefore, the total tennis noise level LT at a particular location, due to n players on the courts, is given by the following. n L 1 LT = 10 loglo nl (1010 — s —1010 I n2 — r 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 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 of measurement, 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 3/17/2014 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mel-wu.com MWOMei Wu Acoustics Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration To: CC: From: Date: Subject: Scott Domnie, Fremont Hills Country Club Larry Russell, Fremont Hills Country Club Gabriel Messingher, Mei Wu Acoustics Jeff Irwin, Mei Wu Acoustics Mei Wu, Mei Wu Acoustics May 30, 2014 sdomnie@fremonthills.com lawrence—charles@msn.com gabriel@mei-wu.com jeff@mei-wu.com meiwu@mei-wu.com 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 Nor118 type -1 precision sound level meter, calibrated on-site with a Norsonic Nor1251 calibrator. V 1.1 1 r► '^1t►`#�rr:.�5ti► _�J NPN 1% �•�.. ! xxl \ ': ZNQE �k Figure 1— measurement locations for evening ambient noise, May 28"', 2014 (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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 1 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 17`h, 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 Drive, Suite 190, Redwood City, CA 94065-1516 Tel: (650) 592-1675 / Fax: (650) 508-8727 / www.mei-wu.com :ATTACHMENT 4 iy Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 13 February 2014 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Audiovisual San Francisco, CA Cynthia Richardson 94104 Telecommunications Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security erichardson(d)losaltoshills.ca.gov F 415.397.0454 www.crosciter.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Char6r, W Salter, PE CSA Project: 14-0053 Da ,..d. R. Scl-ind, FAES Eric L. Broodr urst, PE Dear Cynthia: Philp N. Sander% LEED AP Thomas A. Schindler, PE We have completed our peer review of the acoustical study prepared by Mei Wd Acoustics The Anthony P. Nash, PE (MWA). Crist ctL.Miyer subject study was to evaluate the potential impact to neighbors resulting from extended hours of Joson R. Duty, PE tennis play at night made possible by a new lighting system. This letter summarizes our comments on Durand R. Bega ll. PhD FAES the MWA analysis for the subject project. " Joseph G. D'Angolo Them= I Corbett. CTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eric A Yee Joshua M Roper, FE, LEED AP Peter K. Helst, PE. LEED AP The MWA report does not adequately address the acoustical impact for the following reasons: Ethan C- Salter, PE. LEED AP Thomas D. Keller, CDT • Existing nighttime noise levels were not presented Gag L Ghao, RCDD • No,i a from tennis' activity was not presented Lloyd B. Ronal. . The study does not address noise from possible worst-case scenarios Alexander K. Salter, PE Jeremy L. Docker, PE REPORT EXCEPTIONS TAKEN Rob Hammond. PSP. NICET III Micheal S. Chao Andrew 1. McKee 1. Ambient Noise Measurements — The MWA report sites noise measurements between 8:50 a.m. to Paul R.Bithngs 11:50 a.m. and again between 2:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. These measurement times are not relevant Velars C. smith to the primary goal of the report which is to "assess the noise impacts of tennis courts' extended Erika A Frederick hours [into the night]." Benjanun D. Piper ElisabethKol Elisabeth S Kolwn Recommendation — Conduct nighttime measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels 1.. on loshuoBrian C. Wourms during the hours of interest (e.g. &00 p.m, to 10:00 p.m.). Measure one full week to capture the . Shanna M. Sullivan variation between weekday nights and weekend nights. Amanda G. H:gbie Ryan G.Raskop, LEED AP 2. Tennis Activity Noise Measurements — Noise from tennis activity was not measured. The MWA Diego Hernandez report attempts to measure tennis activity noise at the property lines. However, at Station 1, Ryon A. Schofield "absolutely no tennis noise was discernible above the other ambient noise." At Station 2 Jamal Kinan Brian J. Goad / "measurements were dominated by constant I-280 traffic." And at Station 3 "were again Heather A. Salter dominated by constant I-280 traffic." Dae E Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Recommendation - Measure tennis activity noise, compare these noise levels with the measured Marva De Voar - Naordzeo nighttime noise levels to assess noise ordinance compliance, predict audibility and annoyance. Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmer 3. Potential Noise Impact — The MWA report only measures real-time use of the tennis courts for 6 to. lodesso G. Cortez Susan E Lorergan 8 courts of singles tennis. The number of tennis players could more than double at any time. given Courtney H. Vineys Erin D. Gorton Megan C. Santos Fremont Tennis Club Peer Review 13 February 2014 Acoustical Consulting 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. u Eric A. Yee Principal Consultant 1014-01-10 Fremont Tennis pub Peer Review EAY/eay Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 W WW.crnSalter.corn Charles M. Salter ASSOCIA-ES INC il,-narles /v\. Z11a111rer ASSOCIATES INC. Acoustics 2 June 2014 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Audiovisual Son Francisco, CA Telecommunications Cynthia Richardson 94104 Town of Los Altos Hills T 415.397.0442 Security cdchardson(c)losaltoshills.ca.4ov F 415.397.0454 W W W.CMmiter.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club, Los Altos Hills, CA Charles M. Schur, PE CSA Project: 14-0053 Deva R Schwux{ FAES s Eric L. Broadhurst, PE Dear Cynthia: Plvi!p N. Sanders, TEED AP Thomas A. Schindler, PE The most recent acoustical study from Mei Wu Acoustics measured the ambient noise between the Anthony P. Nash, PE CristinaiL.Myar hours of 8:00 pm and 8:30 pm at the residences closest to the tennis club. The background noise Jason R Daly. PE ranges from 51-52 dBA. Durand R. Begauh, PhD, FAES Joseph G. D'Angelo Based on other tennis court studies we have performed, the average noise level from a singles match Thomas ICorbett CTS on one tennis court is 54 dBA when measured 50 feet from the court side line. The nearest neighbors Yee Enc A. Yee are almost 500 feet from the tennis courts. At this distance, we calculate the noise from a single match JohuoM.Roper,PE, AP Peter K Hoist, PE, IEEDAP to be approximately 34 dBA. This average noise level is 17 decibels below the nighttime ambient and Ethan C. Schur, PE, LEEDAP would not be normally audible. Thomas D. Keller, CDT Craig 1.GJian,P.CDD If all ten courts were occupied simultaneously, the worst-case average noise would increase by 10 Lloyd B.Ranola decibels to 44 dBA when measured at the nearest property line. This assumes all people are playing at Alexander K. Salter, PE once. Even under these conditions, the tennis noise level is 6 decibels below the existing nighttime leromy L. Decker, PE background noise. At these noise levels tennis activity would be masked by other sounds and unless Rob Hammond. PSA, NICET III a Michael S. Chao person was specifically listening for tennis activity, these noises should go unnoticed. Andrew J. McKee Paul R. Billings Human voices are often the loudest source of noise during a tennis matching. Shouting and emotional VoleneC.Smith outbursts could be audible even at 500 feet. In our experience, the noise from tennis balls and shoes Erika A. Frederick squeaks is not nearly as offensive as coarse or rude language. The club should encourage good Benjamin D. Piper sportsman behavior using signage and friendly staff reminders of residences. Elisabeth S. Kelson Joshua J. Harrison Brian C.Wa rns This concludes our peer review for the subject project. Should you have any questions, please give us Shanna M. Sullivan a call. Amanda G. Higbee Ryon G. Raskap, TEED AP Sincerely, Diego Hernandez Ryan A Schofield CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Jamal Kinnn Brian J. Good Heather A. Schur (7", Garcia Deo E Garcia Catherine F. Scurlock Eric A. Yee Marva DeVaar•Ncordzee Principal Consultant Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmer Jadesso G. Cortez 1019-02-10 Fremont Tennis Gub Peer Review Susan E. lonergon FAY/eay Courtney H. Vineys Erin D. Gorton Megan C. Santa ' ATTACHMENT 10 PPP' ,0 , NUMON TPANSPOPTATION 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 t� 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. 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. Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study ® 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 I 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. 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 i 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. r 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 (= a C_ _J u Pud90n Tidnsoo(Cdtion (e isultdllti Inc. Page 12 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 Proiect Trip Generation Estimates Tennis Courts /a/ 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 16th, 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. uWgXdQOn T[0000600 (0111SUR S. Inc. Page 1 3 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study • Roble Ladera Road, between Viscaino Road and Purissima Road. The counts show 135 E i 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 up to 17 new trips per hour when the lights were on. This calculates to 102 new daily 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 Avera Daily Traffic Volumes Roble Ladera Rd Purissima Rd s/o Rhoda Dr n/o La Paloma Rd Viscaino Rd Viscaino PI uPadilon Ira poitatioo GERMS. InC. 135 89 2,124 1,363 1,484 1,017 536 400 586 373 0 135 50 2,174 36 1,520 14 550 102 688 0 1,413 1,053 414 475 Page 14 Fremont Hills Country Club Traffic Study Table 3 Table 4 U Hexd9o0 Tfdfnpoftdtioo Gisultati Inc. Page 1 5 Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Analysis LEGEND = Project Site Location = Study Segment HEXAGON Figure 1 Site Location and Study Segments Fremont Hill Country Club - Traffic Ana LEGEND Project Site Location = Study Segment Figure 2 xx(xx)=ADT(HourlyTrips) Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .. HIMON NORTH Nub $ob ATTACHMENT 11 VlslonThat Moves Your Community Transportation—_. _-----.__--..-- --------.---------.__—___-- --_---- Consultants April 21, 2014 Scott Domnie General Manager Fremont Hills Country Club 12889 Viscaino Place Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Via Email only: sdomnie anfremonthills.com Subject: Peer Review of Hexagon Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Lighted Tennis Courts at Fremont Hills. Country Club in Los Altos Hills 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 Number of 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 year; instead of ending when darkness arrives inthe 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 Pleasanton, CA -; 94588-2798 TJKM independently reviewed data for Los Altos Hills on sunset times throughout the year and 925.463.0611 gou}�. 925.463.3690 rax found that the 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 Freno,200 CAA 5:00 p.m. on the earliest sunset days in December. Staff at Fremont Hills Country Club has 93704-2515 confirmed that tennis play typically continues past 5:00 p.m. at that time of year. This means that 559.325.7530 55912IA940fax 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. 16,h Floor Sacramento. CA 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 Hills Country Club states that tennis players typically arrive no more than 10 minutes -ahead of 1400 N. Dutton Avenue 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 approximately 5:00 p.m. for the new extended hours of play on those earliest sunset days. gkin@tikm.com Assuming playing hours would end at 10:00 p.m., the traffic analysis should assume only five (5) www.tlkm.com 74 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. 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 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 Trak 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 Ist • 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 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:t = 4 months (max.) • 6:00 to 10:00 = 4 hours; March I:t 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 5th plus mid-August until last week of September = 3 months • 8:00 to 10:00 = 2 hours; May 511, 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 Scott Donnie 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 �tikm.com . Very truly yours, Richard K. Haygood, PE, TE Director of Traffic & Multimodal Studies f:1fURISDICTI0ML1Los Altos HillsVremont Hills COLR 042114 Traffic Study Peer Review.docx SITH S011tl Sol 30 NMOL KOZ 3T Niilf 9 CIA L-A J�j sy / �-d-V crl -A�sa�� S111H S011tl SOl 30 NM�w Nf if ( f2 shy A £T ,LNHI' iHDV L,LV Cynthia Richardson From: Debbie Pedro Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:18 AM To: Cynthia Richardson Subject: FW: FHCC tennis lights From: Adele Kellman [mailto:arkellman@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:52 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; iitze@couperus.org; kavitat@corn cast. net; ismandle@hotmail.com, richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; Domnie, Scott (FHCQ Russell, Larry; Mayur Baugh Subject: FHCC tennis lights Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Members, First of all, thank you for considering the request to light 5 tennis courts at Fremont Hills Country Club. We are club members and enthusiastically support this addition. Our family plays tennis and we would certainly benefit from the extra hours available to us, particularly in the winter when we are unable to play after 5:00 PM due to darkness. 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 know former members who left Fremont Hills to join both University and Foothill Clubs because they worked and wanted to use the facilities in the evening. Other friends 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 courts that would be illuminated, 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 over 17 years and been members of this club for 13 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 Cynthia Richardson From: David Orton [davidorton@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:14 AM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, I have writing you to show my support for the Fremont Hills request for tennis court lights. I have lived in Los Altos Hills for 23 years and I have been a member of the Fremont Hills Country Club for 22 years. I have worked this entire time, which makes it almost impossible to play tennis on any day other than the weekend. My job is not an 8-5 office job, it's the typical silicon valley 7:30am to 7:30pm kind of job that gets me home after daylight most of the year. For most of the working population at Fremont Hills, lights would enable us to play all -year round, any day of the week. I also believe that Fremont Hills will attract more strong tennis players by offering lights. There are other advantages to both the club and the community if we had lights at FHCC. The tennis membership at Fremont Hills would very much appreciate your support for this project. Sincerely, Dave Orton 26666 Snell Lane Los Altos Hills, CA Cynthia Richardson From: Debbie Pedro Sent: Saturday, June 14, 201411:57 AM To: Carolsmith2@gmail.com Cc: Cynthia Richardson Subject: Re: Fremont Hills Outdoor Lighting Application Hi Carol, Please submit your written comments via email to myself and project planner Cynthia Richardson (copied on this email) and we will make sure that it is included as an attachment to the staff report for planning commission and city council consideration. Please feel free to email or call if you have any additional questions. Thank you. Debbie > On Jun 12, 2014, at 4:50 PM, "Carolsmith2(@gmail.com" <carolsmith2(@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Debbie, > I understand there is an application by the Fremont Hills Country club to install and use outdoor lighting. > I would like to write a letter in opposition as I believe this is contrary to the intent of our zoning regulations and would have a negative impact on our quality of life (noise, traffic, vandalism), property values, and wildlife. In addition, CEQA investigations take a lot of staff time which for a tiny town is a significant burden. > Can you direct me to, or send me a copy of the application so I can craft a letter which directly relates to this project? > Thanks for your consideration > Carol Smith > 650-322-1070 > Expect abundance and thrive at business and in life 4 Cynthia Richardson From: Diane Ciesinski [diane@ciesinski.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 201411:14 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charies@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, My husband Steve and I are Los Altos Hills residents who live close to Fremont Hills Country Club and have been members there for over 20 years. We absolutely support the proposal to add lights to some of the tennis courts and feel that this action would be of great benefit to our community. Most nearby clubs have lit courts, which enable their members to play tennis after work all year long. The location of the lower courts is tucked away with no neighbors directly adjacent to the project. Our Town has done a terrific job with increasing recreational opportunities for our youth, but the offerings for adults are still limited. Night tennis would be very attractive to both my husband and me and we would make use of the lit courts during the winter to maintain our fitness goals. Thank you - Diane Ciesinski 26435 Ascension Drive diane@ciesinski.com 650-714-8101 cell Debbie Pedro From: MAYUR BAUGH <whitetigerw@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:50 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: Re: FHCC tennis lights - June 24th meeting. Dear PC members: Having lived in Los Altos Hills for.35+ years, walking distance from FHCC, I am delighted to hear that we are progressing towards the reality of having tennis lights at Fremont Hills Country Club (FHCC). I would respectfully ask that you reread my last emails to you, see below. However, I will put the points raised in all my earlier emails into a quick bullet format: 1. Los Altos Hills_ has changed, physically, socially, and financially. While it is still rural in spirit, and in contrast to other neighboring towns, the new homes in LAH do not reflect a "no - outside -lights -country -vibe." What FHCC is asking for with the installation of the tennis court lights is respectful and reflective of the new demographic reality of Los Altos Hills. 2. FHCC provides a haven for the entire Los Altos Hills local community. It is a lovely, welcoming, family friendly, neighborly oasis in the heart of a very vibrant area. 3. Lighting technology has evolved and the impact of introducing tennis lights on the rural nature of the town will be minimal. The topography of the parcel/site of the club make it ideal for the installation of tennis lights. Specifically, FHCC tennis courts are in a valley, surrounded with mature landscaping, and therefore its lights will be more discreet than many of the large mansion's outdoor and security lighting. 4. Similar tennis lights have been successfully installed in local country clubs of like kind neighborhoods and concerns. Many with homes much closer to the courts, and with less natural screening. I cannot stress enough what a wonderful neighborhood feeling FHCC provides for our local community. We will continue to be respectful stewards of the community in which our club is situated if you approve our request to install some tennis lights. Sincerely yours, MAYUR BAUGH 2723o Elena Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 (650) 218-4241 cell # -----Original Message ----- From: MAYUR BAUGH <whitetigerw@aol.com> To: jima.pc <jima.pc@gmail.com>; jitze <jitze@couperus.org>; kavitat <kavitat@comcast.net>; jsmandle <jsmandle@hotmail.com>; richard. partridge <richard. partridge@com cast. net>; dpedro <dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; bfroelich <bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; sdomnie <sdomnie@fremonthills.com>; lawrence_charles <lawrence_charles@msn.com> . Sent: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 12:58 pm Subject: Speaker from Study Sesson Re: FHCC tennis lights Dear Ms. Mandle and PC members: Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email. I did speak at the Study Session, and was not as articulate as I wanted to be since the issues raised in my email below were discussed by Bart Carey in his presentation. In the 40 years I have been here, the town of LAH has transformed, changed and molded itself into a more polished and finished community. The homes are larger, less 'country/rural in architecture, they have significant hardscape and exterior lighting. There are electronic metal entry gates, fences circling the property lines, and outdoor security and. landscaping lighting. FHCC services not just the membership, but the entire community. Years before I became a FHCC member I took tennis lessons, my kids took swim lessons, I swam on the swim team. FHCC welcomes non members on their USTA tennis teams. All but one of our local elementary schools have closed, and our demographics have changed so that we now do not all go to the same places of worship, or belong to like-minded charity or other social organizations. FHCC builds a strong sense of LAH/LA community; this is where I discuss many of our local and state issues, and say hello to new and old friends. The technology has met up with -the needs of the local community. The new lights are extraordinary in their focus and light output. would strongly urge anyone on the Council and/or PC to take a drive to Saratoga Country Club, and Los Altos Golf and Country Club. They are the most like the setting of FHCC. They are all upscale neighborhoods, with rural surroundings, and homes around and above the tennis courts. Saratoga has significantly more homes looking down on the courts, and LAGCC has homes in closer proximity to the courts themselves. The FHCC courts are wonderfully sheilded from the neighboring houses, and the unique topography of the lands make the lights non -intrusive to the character and way of life in LAH. Sincerely yours, MAYUR BAUGH (650) 218-4241 cell # -----Original Message ----- From: Susan <jsmandle(cD_hotmail.com> To: MAYUR BAUGH <whitetigerw(D_aol.com> Sent: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 8:40 am Subject: RE: FHCC tennis lights Dear Mayur Baugh, Community input is important to this process. Thank you for taking the time to let me know your thoughts. Best regards, Susan Mandle To: kavitat(aD-comcast. net; jsmandle(a�hotmail.com; richard. partridge(cD-com cast. net; dpedro(a)-losaltoshills.ca.gov; bfroelich(cD-losaltoshills.ca.gov; sdomnie(d)-fremonthills.com; lawrence charles(aDmsn.com Subject: FHCC tennis lights From: whitetigerw(d-)aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:23:44 -0500 Dear fellow neighbors and council members: I have lived in LAH since 1978, and loved every minute of it. First in my parents home, and them after university and working for sometime, getting a LAH home of my home a mile from my parents. I have watched the town transform itself/its homes from a rural country setting into a more polished finished -landscaped high end community. The population and demographics of the town have changed, and the use of lights and lighting in and outside the homes has substantially increased. The council has worked hard to slow down this transformation, and make sure it is in line with the longer terms plans of the town and its population. Allowing FHCC to get lights would be in line with this'new look' and mood of the town. I use to go to FHCC when I was a child living in Palo Alto with family friends, and the mood and ambiance of the setting and members has stayed lovely, understated and family oriented. I finally joined the club in 2001 when I had time to play tennis full time. I am one of the fortunate ones who can come during the daylight hours. However, there is a large population that works and can only play early mornings or evenings and weekends. The club members are primarily from our local community, and I am certain that they would be respectful of their immediate neighbors if they were allowed to play in the evenings. The landscaping surrounding the FHCC property, in particular, the large trees, coupled with the facts that the tennis courts are set on low ground will make the impact of the new high tech lights a minimum change to the neighborhood light output. The use the courts with the lights will be when people are inside their homes with their own internal sounds (TV, dinner, music). I know that FHCC has approched this request to install the lights with care and much thought. At this time the technology of the new lights has caught up with the change in the town character, so that the tennes court lighting will not be an distraction or eyesore or bother to the neighbors and town. I respect that you approve the request to install them. Sincerely yours, MAYUR BAUGH (650) 218-4241 cell # Cynthia Richardson From: Kim Bishop [kim@net-net.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:35 AM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; Lorelie Russell Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support We are in support of Fremont Hills Country Club's proposal to add tennis court lights in a neighborfi•iendly way, to increase recreation opportunities for youth and adults, to allow FHCC to have similar amenities that other clubs in the area have, and to benefit the community cis a quality club and local resource. Kim and Brad Bishop Cynthia Richardson From: Rick Zirpolo [RickZ@rabbitoa.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:47 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support I want to let you know that I support the adding of lights to a limited number of courts at Fremont hill club. Richard Zirpolo 12675 Dianne drive Los altos hills,Ca 94022 Sent from my iPad 9 Cynthia Richardson From: Marvin Wenger [mwenger@CleanSource.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:49 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze.@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; lawrence—charles@msn.com Cc: MBDEA57@aol.com; sdomnie@fremonthills.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Dear Los Altos Town Council Members— We embers— We have been Los Altos Hills residents for over 20 years and are appreciative of your ongoing stewardship and support. As such, we thank you very much for taking the proposal to authorize the addition of non-invasive lighting to our club, Fremont Hills Country Club. We believe that adding this dimension is an important step in the evolution of our club and the community. We hope you share our view that professional, attractive and functional recreational facilities and programs are a draw to the residents of our evolving and growing Los Altos and Los Altos Hills community. Thank you again for your consideration. We look forward to the upcoming meeting on the 24th of this month. Best regards, Marvin and Beth -Ann Wenger 25484 Adobe Lane LAH Marvin Wenger I President Clean urce YHE <U.L`w 3UPP41r., LX"M CleanSource 650 Brennan Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Office: 408.324.3201 Mobile: 408.314.1664 Fax: 408.324.3294 E-mail: mwenaer(Wcleansource.com Website: www.cleansource.com This e-mail and any files transmitted oath it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and delete all copies of this message. 10 Cynthia Richardson From: Steve Shepherd [steveshepherd 1 @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 7:53 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charies@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Hello, My wife and I are in support of the lighting project for Fremont Hills Country Club as presented. We understand that only courts #4 - #8 will be lighted as they are the courts lowest on the property and would be less noticed by any neighbors to that property. I served on the Board of Directors of FHCC in 1987-1988 and was the President of the Board in 1988. One of our goals at that time was to provide lighting to the tennis courts to allow a large percentage of our membership, both adults and children, to play tennis after evening hours. We are very encouraged to support the efforts of our current management and Board of Directors in this project. Fremont Hills Country Club has always been a good neighbor and a family focused tennis and swim club. This seems to fit the same mission of the Town of Los Altos Hills. We believe enhancing the membership services of this Club would provide mutual benefits not only to current members, but to future members of the Club, many of whom reside in the community of Los Altos Hills. Best regards, Steve and Bev Shepherd 465 Cavalier Court Los Altos, Ca 94022 11 Cynthia Richardson From: Rich Beyer [beyer.rich@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 11:53 AM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charies@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support I would like to indicate to you the members of the LAH Planning Commission that I support the application of Fremont Hills CC's request for lighting of several of the tennis courts. i believe the CC has been highly responsive to the requests of neighbors and the Planning Commission and that the Club is a very good member of the LAH community and a good neighbor. I ask that you support their request. Thank you Regards, Rich Beyer 13503 Fremont Road LAH 94022 12 Cvnthia Richardson From: Amy Johnson [amy.johnson@ajx2.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:47 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support We fully support the Club's proposal to add tennis court lights in a neighbor friendly way, to increase recreation opportunities for youth and adults, to allow FHCC to have similar amenities that other clubs in the area have, and to benefit the community as a quality club and local resource. Thanks, Amy & Alex Johnson 13 Cynthia Richardson From: Art Benjamin [ajb7@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 7:59 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charies@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support I pass along my support for this project. Sent from my iPad 14 Cynthia Richardson From: French, Nicholas [nicholas@serenogroup.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:40 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Cc: 'Melissa Kutrubes (melissa.kutrubes@gmail.com)' Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, We would like to voice our support to Fremont Hills Country Club application regarding tennis court lights on a portion of their tennis courts. The club has been a value -add to our community and given the location of the courts with respect to neighbors, we think the benefits greatly outweigh any negatives presented from adjoining properties. We also plan to speak at the June 24th commission meeting. Kind regards, Nicholas & Melissa French 13101 La Cresta Drive 650 773 8000 (cell) 650 947 3099 (fax) 15 Cynthia Richardson From: Steve Souders [steve@souders.org] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:45 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; sdomnie@fremonthills.com; lawrence_charles@msn.com Subject: Fremont Hills Country Club Tennis Court Lighting Project Support Please support FHCC getting tennis lights. We're a good participant in the community - most of the people I swim and play tennis with are NOT members but take advantage of the very open policy at FHCC. This will increase tennis enjoyment for FHCC members and the community. Thanks. -Steve Souders 16