HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 Supplemental--- Original Message ------
From: "Roy Woolsey" <Roy@WoolseyMail.com> _
To: "John Harpootlian" <harpootlian@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Noise ordinance
MAR v 209
Hi John, ((�}}��jj�� (�c c AST t
Thanks for the information on the proposed noise ordinance modificatQW . F VOUS ALTOS H1103
Some comments:
(1) I notice that "Implements of husbandry" has been changed to "farm
equipment". "Husbandry" included gardening, like electric or gasoline lawn
mowers and leaf blowers, but it seems that "farm equipment" should be
changed to "farm and gardening equipment" to have the same effect.
Otherwise, where does powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers and thel like fit
into the noise ordinance? Note that the definitions section may need to be
modified to including gardening equipment.
(2) As I recall, the "C" scale is more stringent than the "A" scale by
several deciBels, so changing from the "C" to "A" scale without
correspondingly reducing the deciBel levels in table. 5-2.02 (g) is
effectively making the noise ordinance a bit less stringent. Nowhere is
this mentioned in the staff report. On one hand, I think this should be
sent back to staff to address this issue, but on the other hand, a noise
expert might say that 40 dB even on the "A" scale is too stringent for
modern civilization! (which I would disagree with!)
(3) While I would leave the table after 5-2.02 (g) alone, some people might
argue that there should be an adjustment to the "persons" category =-
perhaps to set the level to 45 dB between 7 PM and 10 PM, so it is easier
for people to have outdoor parties during the summer. While there is an
argument for a third time period for people, I'd let "sleeping dogs lie" and
not bring it up unless it became a big issue.
(4) 5-2.02 (g) looks like addition of text -- which reads "No person shall
act or operate any device defined in the following table". That makes no
sense as it reads -- that people cannot operate machines, etc., at all
because they are in the table! It looks like the words "above noise levels"
or "at noise levels above those" after "device" and before "defined".
(5) The definition of Sound -producing or amplifying device is geared too
much towards active human activity. I'd recommend that after "bells" the
"and" be removed and after "drums", other categories of noise -producing
equipment be listed, such as "air conditioners, powered gardening tools, and
other equipment." I appreciate that my proposed additions are covered under
"fixed noise source", but it seems that machines and mechanical devices are
really excluded from the "sound -producing device" category, and yet they
•certainly produce noise!
I am short of time right now, and really don't want to take my time to pull
out my files of all the research I did ten years ago on noise sources and
levels, review them and refresh my memory and then go over to the meeting
and testify. But I do think this proposal might want to go back to staff to
be sure that the change from "C" to "A" scale is thoroughly thought through.
Thanks for drawing this to my attention.
Best regards, Roy
On 3/1/2011 9:13 AM, John Harpootlian <harpootlian@gmail.com> wrote:
The following will be reviewed at this Thursday's Planning Commission.
JohnH
http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/documents/planning_commission_meetings/20ll/LAH Planning_C
ommission_2011-03-03/LAHPC_20110303 AI031.4.pdf
<http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/documents/planning_commission_meetings/2011
/LAH_Plannii�g_Commission_2011-03-03/LAHPC_20110303 AI03.4.pdf>
From: Nick Dunckel [mailto:ndunckel@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 20114:34 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: 'Denise Williams'; 'Sue Welch'
Subject: Stanford -funded path along Page Mill and Arastradero roads
Debbie —
I was chairman of the Pathways Committee at the time that the proposed Stanford path along Arastradero and
Page Mill Roads between .Purissma and Baled Ranch was discussed on March 23, 2010. It was also walked by
the Committee prior to that date.
Debbie —
The Pathways Committee supported the development of the proposed pathway along Arastradero and its
extension to the off-road pathway behind the parking lot at Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road. The Committee
reviewed the proposed development on March 23, 2010 and walked the proposed path prior to that date.
Members felt that the project would substantially improve the existing pathways and provide improved
connections within the Town as well as improved connections to both Stanford and Palo Alto. This is a desirable
goal as stated in the Pathway Element of the General Plan:
Regional Connection
108. The pathways system of the town is intended primarily for the use of Town residents but it should be
connected to the path and trail systems of neighboring jurisdictions.
I apologize I can not attend the Planning Commission Meeting but I have a previous engagement.
Sincerely,
Nick Dunckel
3/3/2011