HomeMy WebLinkAbout0286.092~i~'
. . .. "
.~ .' . . , '"
June 11, 19Sf2
Honorable city council
Palo Alto, california
Members of the Council:
Attached is a report (Exhibit I) prepared by the firm of Smith,
fause al"'.d McDonald (SFM) for the City of Mountai:!"J. View r.egarding
the Shoreline Alnphitheater noise issue. SFM has been Mountain
View's consultant or. this su.bject for some time. The report
proposes a two step approach to decision making on the part of the
Mountain view City Council. First, the report prcposed that
certain measurements, using sophisticated and modern technology.
could be undertaken if Mountain View desires to do eo. There are
six measurements suggested. Second, the report proposes that there
are six ~ that could be undertaken to determine if the sound
reaching Palo Alto could be reduced.
At our most recent meeting with Mountain View and Bill Graham
Pres~nts (BGP) representatives I we discussed this approach at great
length. The qeneLal conclUsion of the group was that while the
completion of the proposed measurements would provide some data not
now available, the measurements would not tell us much in the way
of rlew information. Consequer.tly, emphasis should be put on
running the tests using the infcr.cr.ation we now have. The six tests
are described beginning on page 9 of tha 5FM report.
BGP's sound consultant r r.evit.z and Associates (L&A) , reviewed tbe
SF.K report and attempted to assess the relative merits of each of
the measures and tests. Their report is a bit complex and! have
taken the liberty, for the sake of simplicity, of extracting the
relevant data and including it in a -:nodified chart form. These
charts are attached as Ey:.ibits II (measurements) and III (tests).
A note of caution is appropriate here. The assessment of the
effectiveness ~f the tests is si~ply the best estimate the
consultants c::an give at this time:;. It m2lly be that actual field
testinq yields results l?>\lcr. different than antic.ipated. In
addition, the cost of running the tests may vary from the figures
shown in the charts.
CHR:286:92
-
~ .. -• .-•• L.
Page Two
Palo Alto representatives expressed a strong desire tor Mountain
View to move ahead 'With testing, since it appears that additional
measurements will not result in siqniticent new information fer the
consultants to use in fashicning possible solutions to the problem.
Mour.tain View 'las agreed to take that advice seriously as they
continue to fe_Mulate a strategy to resolve this issue.
A final item wor+-h noting --BGP h~~ agreed to an early start time
for many of their fall concerti>. Thia: policy will alloW' the
concerts to end earlier, especially on nights preceding ~ school
day. There may be some financial 1055 to 8GP; however, the finn
has aqreed to ahsorb those costs.
staff will continue to keep Council advised.
Respect~ully submitted,
WILLI
City anaqer
Attachments: Exhibits I, II, III
CMR'285:92
L
EXHIBIT 1"
I illlill~mlW !1111~WNmIllNi!!I!!i!11I11
'Smilh, mMl & ~Id, 1<-.c.,1 ~I\ lor !he ~i& Enwer . .,.....rr:
~i"Ch~&.N~~ I E~lI:JtJ.::)..'1:Icci~rl9;~ro;; I s..:...~a.lr.d~ Sl"lre~ I AiV!. r<lm p~,.,Sl~s I ~ l~rt1>">;!. ~ ... ];r".l
Me<r.!>w -~~I Ctlt;I'".ciI af Aa:-A.'icol Corl!.d~n!$.
May 15, j 992
Ms. Unda Forsberg
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94G41
Project:
Subject:
SharE~ne .Amphitheatre
1992 Study of Community Noise Impact
Test & Measurement A.lternat!Ves
Dear Unda,
As requested by the City, SFMI has developed the attached program Of measurements
and tests arternatives for the City's c.onsjde~arlon. As further directed, we have 815'81 n01ed
the strengths and weaknesses of each Cipproach. Each serves one or more o~ the goals
expressed to-date by the varfous parties involved. As t~e discussion t~at fol;ows each
proposal relates, not all efforts are !ikely to be successful and many of the more obvious
approaches will not satisfy one of more of t..':e key goals of the program.
Mr. Joer lewrtz of Lewitz & ,a.ssoc~ates has taken responsibility for reviawing and
summa~izjng the attached program. He has as..o:;umed respon-5!biHty for identifying the
costs associated with the lndivIdual Tests idelltmed herein. SFMI has iden!Jfied the costs
assooated with the Measurements presented herein. Fonowing consuttation v...ith Mr.
Levviu: we have incorporated fee pro\ljsions fOl' Mr. Lewitz to accompany SFMf during the
Measurement program.
APPROACH· MEASUREMENTS & TESTS
Foflowing our direction, we nave developed two distim.1: approaches -Measure:ments and
Tests. The Measurements are lntended to extend the e'Xisting base of acoustical
measurements, and ill some case to correrate L'1em with direct measureme:1t of weather
activity. Fee estimates are presented for the six acousti-:ai rT,easurement a!t&rnatives and
The Ai){lifiree Bui"di..., I IOC ~ Emb:;<Todt~ ~,",i~ 2~r, r .'Xl" (o::r'(,:;O;,O ;'J105·121: I fGl' \41~:' 2JJ .d,J"C
Sc ~ frC'1CI!iCc (~15~ 2J~.· ~~5 J ~C"1 Ansie,~ i:?l JI m-lol).;o:
.-. \ .
. '
Ms. Unda Forsberg
May 15, 1992
Page 2
reference is made to a South Bay resource br performing the metecrologicai
measurernents.
We have also developed' a fist of six Tests that cou~d be performed. The tests are
intended to prove !he mitigation :;apab~itie:s of three ::Jfthe Architecturar optJ'Cons identified
in our report!o tke City of Jar.uary 10, 1991.
BACKGROUND
In contemplating additional measurement of t'le acoustical impact of ShoreEne, we wish
to emphasize that considerable effort has already been expended in maKing
measurements, or in attempting to make them. On beha'f of BGP ar.d the Crty of
Mountain View, SFMI has beell at the knphiL'1eatre or in the field for a total or 10
concerts in the years between 1986 and 1990. Shore nne has a~50 been recording its own
"dBN sound levels for the ~ast five years at both the conscle operalor's position and at
the rear W"al~ of the facirity" Thus, although not exhaustive: in quantity, conslderable data
is already avanable regarding:
TypicaI concert sOLlnd leveis withln Shorenne in dBA (subject to t~e 8mft of a
Shoreflne's pen recorder and the cal~bration of the me~ers).
T,1'icaJ ambient sQund :e'lr'els in P3\O Alto and north Mountain View, in both dBA and
octave lmnds.
More limited information is available about:
Peak concert sound lave's at the edgF; of the bey.". (1;, ccta've bands).
Typical concel1 sound impact le'/::.is in Pa:o Arto on nights of iOY'.' to moo'e:-ate
complaints \in both dBA and octave bands).
UttIe or no information is, however. ava~abr e as to:
local weather conditions or t~ei, specific relationship to those reported by Oakland
airport..
Typical concert sound impact leveis in Pa~o Alto or Mountain View on nights of high
leveis of complaints 0n both d8A or octave bands).
The measurement programs below respond to thes€' deficiencies and/or to suggestions
or requests made by persons wah whom we have conferred.
klitl1. M111M & Mc.oO'lOJd,.1ne I~" klr!he Svil! b';r>:lnmen·
~~'.Q.I.~($,~ l En...rcnr!Oen!OJ.<lo:;o..l$to;aIErog~"Si I SourxllS VodeoS'(!ll!r.u / A,V!. " .. -.~~~!>I"r"1S / The-JI~l'~C1I1:";!. ""qcw.;
Th:~~.~u,ld~ 11OC"!l-toEmtlo).~.SoJ,ip260 r s.:Jn~O'"(lrlC.$CO.CA~410S·I{'1 / b;~!~(~:\.~31~
!.en F:-ancN"O !~~5J 2"'3·';)05 f l~ Arlg@"".'2IJI3:n·.,j(XlC-
, -._-.,---._.-..
.,
Ms. L!nda Forsberg
May 15, 1992
Page 3
MEASUREMENTS
1. Measure Sound L~ve!s at Edge of Bow! in Octave BClnds.
a. Procedure: Measurement to be made of selected concerts to determine ac1lJal
sound ie'lels at top of bowl of P.rnphitl;eatre in each of 8 frequ8ih..-Y bands
(separating low bass sound from hign trequ8r1C)' souncs). Measuremen~s to be
made in one second increments and documented in a compLier file. Prepare
summary report at the conciusion of e3ich measurement.
b, Pros:
i. Measurement wouid definitively deterrr.ine w,~t sound levels actual:y occur
at 00""1 edge, superseolng L"1e mere limite.d ~d8A~ sound level dlarts
generaily recorded to-data. P.s tnis data is can be gathered exdusw€ of
complaint act!vity, every measurement contributes usef;J1 [eve! data.
Quantity (as 'Neil as quality) of information regarding sound levels at bowl
edge is greatiy increased by use of computer driven sampnrlg.
ii. Comparison between complaint activity and presence of h!gh leveis of low
{bass) frequency sound could be made, supers.eding .. he inconclusive
comparisons made :o-date between apparent dBA le· ... e!s (35 recorded on
a pen c."l-Jart recorder) and complaint ac'Jvfty.
iii. Direct compariso;"\ could be made with proposed ordinance levels
considered by Mountain Vie· ... ls erry Counc~ In tr~e~r meeting of February 11,
1992. This Yo'ourd estabfish a baseline of da:a for imprememing such an
ordinance in the fl..1:ure, shou1d Lie ana[ysis or the data deterP:line that t.l-:e,e
L~ a direct relationship be'eV'l'een iow frequsnl,")' sound levels a~ the bowl
edge and complaints (exciusive of weaUlef conditions).
c. Cons:
i. Collection of most significant data -relatlonship of sound levels to complaint
activrty is limned to nights when complaints occur. Measurement of sound
levels coupled with no or low complajnt acttvfty can be anticipated for most
events.'
We note that Shoreline has had a total 243 shows since 1986; 113 resulted in 1
complaint or more, 51 resuited In 6 or more complaints. The histOiical average
suggests that haif of the measurements wil! be made without correspon6.ng
complaints, 80% of the measurements y"if! be made without stat~stlcaily significa~t
reve is of co mp laints .
.s.m.iJb. FaUM" 1I\cDc1l<lid. ~~" ,I c.es.;n lor ~ 5. .. ilr En~"""ffii
~ Ao::I)r.Mr;:l; & N(j0$8(~ I. ~'I"OMI~' Ac"'.J~'>o:(l:1 tr19i"ft'(lr19 I !.curo;j 4. Vod..,$~ I A/V &-riim Prc,~o~ ~,",~I I Trea;rl! i...;~~ 1 ".gg':-.s
The AOdiffre<i iluijd"'ng I ICAJ n-e ~~, s.me 2t<J I Son ftTl'1trs.:.o UI. 941C·5·12:7 I :Fell< [~:5124:>·~J10
'Sc~ mr>:L'£<.oj4!5'1 N::J·A:1G5 ! L"'$ Arv"~~·;2131!.."":' 4000
~,--",,,,.,,. i~flO-"1""''''.''''"''.1''M'---
-
L
t
I
j
"
--
•
, ,
~-j , ' ., ; ,
.' . ;:'·,,,~,s·~,· .. ~~ '",
. ·>·t~,.~::
'!::;~~:~'-::~~: ~;
Ms. Unda FOfsberg
May 15, 19$2
Page 4
ii. '<rtowiedge c: what bowi edge sound leve:5 are likely to cause COfTlplaints
(provided such a ;"slationsr,ip "IS es+ablishea) is useful in preparing a r.oi~e
crdina1ce aimed at reducing compiaim ac..'ttvity. Without knowledge oj<,..mat
tr'e cornpluint..causing sound levels in the neJghbor'"'oods are, however,
objective design effo."ts to m1.igate t~1? imoact car. 110t proceed.
m. SFMI has already measured octave band sound leyels in a simnar manner
fer six sho~'S as pa.1 at our measurement program of i990. The res!..Jlts; of
the measurements wsre contained in OiJr report 10 tr,e Ctty daled January
10,1991. Complete graphical depicUon.s 'here presented in our letter to:) the
CITy regarding the proposed ordinance (dated February 4, 1992), We note
that the location of these measurements (mJdway in the facility) leaves them
open to some data corruption that would not exist for measurements taken
at the rear of the bowl.2 None·the·!ess, based on the few samples
obtained with corresponding complaint history, the rejationship between
bowl edge sound !evels and complaints 'is tenuous :;:.:! best, owing tr,e large
role played by t~e weather.
d. Costs· Fees and Test EquiprPent
i. Per measurement· $1400, including
(1) Stal! engineer (1) -$350
(2) Test equipment -$225
(3) Report preparation -$350
(4) l&A -$465
R. Project reimbursable expense tc be bmed as incurred.
2.. Measure Sourv:f Levers in Paio Alto and Nort'l Mountain View it! dBA
a
,
Procsdure: Measuiement of sound impacts In Pa!a Mo and Moun!ain View to be
made using a conventional "dBA" meter. Locaflon of impact to be determined by
direction from Shorerme hotjine staff and trom Mountain View and Palo Alto poTice
dispatchers. Information to be relayed by to mobne measurement staff by mears
of ce"ular telephone. Verification of program content (d eterminatio.'l th at Shor e~ne
~ source) to be made by caPos to Shoreijne operations office or similar telephone
in acoustic path of sound reinforcement system, patched to system or srm~ar
The kxation at spotiight tower was selected to secure the measurement system
without the l1€ed to staff it
SmIIt\~"M&~Inc./Oesi<;n~it1Le..i1IE'~1
~~rQf Acl:una& Ho!se~ I ~ ~>l' f~ / So!.;nd &.\rlli~'.i)'$lt1ll3 i ..... ' & Filn, ~~ Sjlif~ I n'eo:'e ~~'"'9 & R~,"':i
T:-.eAUddlrej ~ I lOOn. E..,b::Hmderc. Sv.rt UO / S<ln Frcrw.:I3(.O,C;I ~4105-l2'7 I Fa:q~15i24.:H3:C.
5rtnfrr ~1,j.1S12AJ·O·J5 I ~ ~.ngE~~:m:.m 4OC(l
,.,--_ .. -'~"'-'-'--'--~-
I .
-
Ms. Unda Forsberg
May 15, 19S2
Page 5
arrangement. Summary re!="ort fa be prepared at th8 conclusion of each
measurement
b. Pms:
i. Measurements tc' re1/ealleveis of sound impact in nefghborhoods in terms
defined cy existrng Palo Alto and Mountain Vie'h' city noise ordiiJances
(dBA). As Palo Afto's ord:nance requires measurement of the unirT1pacted
ambient for comparjson, addlUonai information wlil be developed 65 to wha~
Palo Alto's ambient condltfcflS are.
C, Cons:
L Actual measurement of Shoreline impact levels wm be Ifmited to less than
2O-3{)QA. oi attempts, due 10 wea:her variab!es and transient nature of impact
as noted above.
iL Because impact is princlpalfy jow frequency, and because A-weighting
ignores ~ow frequencies, meas;,gements wi:! gef"lerai refiect orcfJnance
compriance even though impact is clearly audible.
[ii, information developed W'!, dEtermine compflance or vioration of ordinances,
however, inform2tion in cBA terms .. viII be of limrted value in developing
potential SOflj1.:ions.
tv. Information is nmit€d to degree of exceecance, The role of the wea'..f"]er
(versus concert ievelsJ can not be detelnlined because accurate know~edge
of the sound le'le!s inside the facil1ty are ["ot krlOwn in this method.
v. SFMI has already developed a ~mited database of typical impac, !evels in
dBA, aithough the measurements to·date do not include wrxst case
complaint nights. SFMl has an extensive database of \Vhat Palo Mo's
unimpacted ambient is, bot"! in dBA a'1d in octave bands.
d. Costs -Fees and Test Equlpment
L Per measurement -$675 to $1200, induding:
(1) Staff engineer (1) -$.350
(2) Test equipment -$125
(3) Report preparation, ~ successful-$310
(4) L&A-upto$415
ii. Proiect reimbursable expense to be billed as incurred.
~mith. t1J1JY! &. ",,=~nold.lrlC. i Dor!;"l-' 'c< rt.oe Bui!: ':rlWOlIllI(!n'
~I Ae.r.:sllO & ~ Co:'~ I ErhIi~M.,E!t'II!lI Ac~1 Enr;lr~em'9 I :iound c: '/<ao s~ I A/V & r,im h~~ S"'5lf"'l I ~~ l..;Irf1r.; & R'(;;"rl!j
The A.iId~ ~i~::hll9 j 100 Thr Er1>OO"tOOem S'JJ'fo 2::.0 i $c., ~,"Cr)(<<O CA. 9~:a5·1217 ! fox ::"l~~ 201:] .. (iIC
San frol'lC6.:o !,~15l ~'l·';J(J~ ! L.~A~r..I.li.3) m·4OC(1
L
Ms. Unda Forsberg
May 15, 1992
Page 6
3. Measure Sound Levels in Palo Alto in dBA and in Octave Bar>ds.
a. Procecure. As f()( 2. above, using an octave band analyzer.
b. Pros: As for 2. above. Additror"lally. the impaci 2nd amb;ent dai;:;; developed is
s uitabie for use in designing m rtigatfoo systems.
c. Cons: As for 2.c, i. and N. above. SFMI has extensive me3surement of t~s PeJo
Ma ambient in octa.ve bands, and limrted measurements of the impact ~ve!s in
octave ba'lds.
d. Costs -Fees ~nd Test Equipment
l Per measuremant -$875 to .$1600, including:
(1) Staff engineer (1) . $350
(2) Test equipment -$225
(3) Report preparation, if successful -$450
(4) L&A -up to $575
ij. Project reimbursable expense to be biHed as ~""';Cl.;:red.
4. Sil"01ultaneously measure Sound Levels at Edge of Bowl aOld in Palo Me in Octave
Bands.
a.
b.
Procedure: This procedure combines the efforts of 1. and 3. As performed ~
previously by SFMI (1990 season), efta," syr.chronizes two h'gh quality tape c 7
recorders, Icaving one at the Arnphitheatre arrd carry[119 one into the field, Using ~ .. ~~~
the tw"o tapes, analysis of what impacts were t'1e result of weather and whai were v'-''' },
tr,e res!..Jrt of coocert sound levels can be determir.ed. Essentially un~mfted ~ "
qlJo.Jltities of information can be extracted from the tapes as required at a later l l-V
date, including octave, dBA and post-concert ambient Summary report to be ~ :1S7
prepared at the conclusion of each measurement t l-
Pros:
i. Highly quafity data easily deveioped in large quantities.
c. Cons.
i. As for 1 , :2 and 3 above. there is a low probability or successfu Ily ca~turing
new and significant data during a particuiar measurement
SnliItI., Fovw a. A\cDoIIGId, 11K I r~M fa..-ho Bu':' ~rMronl'l1tnl
Ard'DIo:n.."IlI~ & ~ ~ j' ,n'M":-nr!!~1 ~()I ~i~ I Sc..Jnd a. ¥(jeo s~ I A/V' F"m ~rui~ s~~ I T~ :.r,rm,-'\I &. !l1~gl""
n..~rtIl'BI!lkJ·"9; IDOT'r!ef~~,w.e2C:() I Son'rer\.'tSCJ],>:A'i410.'i-t21; I rc.:,"·~'Z"3.4J!1)
" ._---------Sa" ~CC,,(~O 1~1~, 20·J305 I ~ "'-.... !"l!S :ZIJIlZ2·4·X()
L
; ---
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
-
o
Ms. linda Forsberg
May 15, 1992
Page 7
ii. SFMI has already col!ected considerable taped data or. the unimpacted
ambient. anc has fimjted tape data availabre>rrorn evenings wnh low to
moderate assoc~ated complaint leve!s,
m. Costs.
d. Costs· Fees and Test Equipment
L Pet measurement -$2260 to $2915, including
(1) Staff engineer and technicians (3) • $890
(2) Test equipment· $570
(3) Data Reduction -$695, rf ~lJccessfu!
(4) Report preparaticn -$760, i~ successful
(5) L&A· upto$14&5
it Proiect reimbursabie expense to be billed as incurred.
5. Locate a smal! weather station at Shore!ine to maasure iocar invefslon conditions, wind
speed and moisture content to improve ability to pred!ct impact
2. Procedure: Using an acoustic ~sounder" (or more sophistica!ed "phased array"
sounders), objectively measure inv~rsi0n conditions in the immediate \o'icinity of
Shore~ne before and/or during concerts (rather t'Jan as measured at 4 o'clock al
Oakland .l\Irportj. Supplement inversion dat'3 v.ith local wrnd speed, wind
direction and hum[dity data.
b. Pros:
L Useful i:-"formaUon regard]ng SpeCinC re!ationship bet\veen weather ,and
complaint activity wOl.Jld be acqu~: ed.
~. Procedure mlght id~ntify whether practical means exist V'titl-J which to disturb
almospheie enough to 'break Lip" loca[ ;nv8fs]on and diminish impact (as
described in the 1991 reporl., AI chitectural option 5).
c. Col1s:
i. As for proceeding programs, mos1 data wiii simpiy reflect trle wide varfety
of weather conditions under which relatively few r:ompraints resu~l. Fewer
than 25% of all concerts result in signmcant levels of complainls.
Ii. Data wiiJ lack detailE:d (i.e. octave band history) sound level information.
ArJY relatio:lships that are detefmin'3d from the meaSured weather data will
reflect the uncertain contribution of ccncert "bass~ jevers.
Siftit~ ~Ulot & McQoo,I;IId, Int.I ~~n Ic:r me. !lu.ll E. .... ,rOr.rTlPfll
~I A/:w-.JC.& ~ ~ I ErrvorcnmMJoI kOlJ~o! E"9i~n ...... I 5o<Jn.J & \l~;,o s~; : A:II!. frim P~eo.on S(l~"'; I ~r! l..<;l~'I,,'g & ",'1l',i'n.
The A~rlIrl!d &AJ'r>; I 100 n.-Embcn:C'd~ro, Sur~ 260 I San F,a ..... '$(~.CA 9AIO~·1117 i Fe>. 1~'5i :"3.'J1C
s.~" !rol'l("t!£c i." is: ~n· '31)5 I L~ J.rg:~ :,': 13) 1,;;'· ~OOO
-
Ms. Unda Forsberg
May 15, 1932
Page B
ilL Some focaI wfnd and tempe,atur'9 data is avai1abie from the nea:by "f1are·
off" station. This station does not, howe· ... ('r, log the kef inversion data
required.
d. Contact:
There are several consulting meteorologists in the Bay Area. One tim that wou!d be
interes~€-d in performing these measurements is:
Mr. Alan Cima
Future Weather, Inc.
1400 Coleman Avenue, Sufte D·1
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Tel: (408) 252-0626
Fax: (408)253·87<'2
s. Costs:
Mr. erma has indicated t~at hi's staff would be availab~E to perform the measurements
for a fee of $480 per day, using a Doppler Sodar thaI leases for $6500 per month.
6. Measure sound levels as per 4. in conjunction wit.~ measurement of weather p€r 5.
above.
a. Procedure: Synchronized c:oncert ~lld nefgnborhood sound levels to be recorded
and measured; simuH:aneousl~', wea!her a! site and changes in weatr,er to be
measured as described abov'e. S:Jmmary report 10 be prepared at the conch.!£ior.
of each measurement
b. Pros:
t. Complete analytical information to be made ava~abJe through this
comprehensive process. The role of concert sound J.eve~s can be review~d
i.rK~ependentty of t'le rale of the weather at the site.
C. Cons:
i. Costs and Cflmplexity.
d. Costs:
See Measurements 4 and 5.
Sm~, FaU"f & Mc;r..:,ngkj, Ir.c./ ~n br <he &.~ frM~n"",,""
~~\~& ~ i"..orwO< I tmrn:Y'"'!'1~1 A,(C<&(~ £~,r~.-.; I So<.I'Id a. \/dffi S.'lIems / I4N' F"~m fI~ S~I I ~ ~fl~ & R.g.;'rKJ
furA,WiP.red ~~;nIl I lOO~Ernb::lrtrOOc,,$.J,II!'UilI So' "C"~o,CA"Al~5·1217 I ~ .. 1~15: 2,,~-';:110
$:)0 F~"'C!;;:~ ': 4i ~ 2~ 3 -4:llJ~ I L~ ,e -; '",':' 37: .COJ
,
~ I
-
• .:...:-... .; ......... , .. ,,.._.J-~::-.. _.h,,_"
Ms. unda For>; qerg
May 15, 1.992
P3';le 9
TESTS
As stated at the outset. costs have no: been developed for the following tests as t'ley
require considerable cocperation by the Amphitheati8 sr:d ,,~.'ouJd tl-:us need fuli."":er
relinement by Bil! Gra.~am's consultant -LewitL & ,A..ssooates.
Simulate effect of f,ying canopy and rais.c:!d wan through sound system mock-!Jp
a. Procedure: Based on preTiminary design of flying canop~', Ixate mock-up sound
system at edge of proposed edge of proposed canopy (on scaffolding). Sound
system for be eleva:ed and oriented to simu:ate effect of sound escaping thiDugh
canopy and from under canopy. Apply test signals to sound system and
measure :eve:s in the neighborhoods. Relocate system (or use a second system)
flown from stage spG'aker stack iocatio,'i t'O simulate effect of exisr~ng conc!itions.
Apply test tones. Analyze Gjtferences in levers
b. Pros:
l S;mulate effectiveness of i!y;ng canopy solution {SFMi 1/10191 Report.
ArchrteCf1Jral So:ution 3) without considerab1e expense of attempting to
!emporar,y rig a large section of canopy (see below).
ii. Could be combined with fTlock·up of raised rear wal! to simulate combined
effect of bot~.
c. Cons:
i. Meaningful testing 'w',Iould req'J:re knowledge t'1at ..... i€ather conditions
approximate those rr-.2t cause cOr:iplaints. This wourd make the test
relatively djfficutt to schedule.
ii. Would require carefui design of t'1e rNO source sound systEms to ensure
that each acclJrate!y reAects t'le conditions each is intended to simulate'.
2. Test use of house sound system designed to minimizE unwante-d dispersion.
a. Procedure: In ileu of using touring sound company 5J'stem, conduct an event {or
events) using temporary '"nouse~ sound system designed to maximaHy control
sound distribLItion pattern and minimize sound energy escap[ng from facility.
b. Pros:
i. Demonstrates effectrveness of control avanable through use of a House
sound system, including use of multiple distributed sound source {ather
Sm~, FG\IW& Mc:~nCl[d, In::. i ~~ b·1I'-..! 5I",[r ~nvilnn;n;!:11
~ral ~ & ~ ~ I Errvi~JI A.;.:;-/StaI1 t~,~""9 i :;C"nd l. ,Id~ :c_~~ri~ I A/V & F,im P:~,n 5~"Sl .. 'm I' n"'~:1l' v;'J:in'i & .QI.;g,:-.g n.. .6Willted lkilC,r .. j 100 n. E:!lOOIt~rc, Su'1e ~~ I SJ~, f,~n.::~~, ~ 9.t:C'S-IZI? I F1l~ [415 1 ~J3."::I1J
So~ Frur-&.co (.~~~:, '~J·'(31)5 I ~ l;~~I~ \2::>: ~~.~
f 1<
-
Ms. Unda Forsberg
May 15, 1992
Page 10
C. Cons:
than a few high leve: sources (SFMJ 1/1 O/g~ Report, .Afchj:ecturai ~.Jlutjon
4.)
L Conside(able coorcGnatlon would be requked to wire a large distrfuuted
sO'..Jnd system at 1.'1e faciiity. as it would :i~:ely require wirefess audi::, nks
and c..areful deslgn so as not to impa.ct siter;nes.
it. Considerable cooperation wou~d be required from the artists invoived to
permit use of a house sound system iather than their favor~te touring sound
system. Oua~ty of sys1em used would need to at least equal quality of
better touri'lg sy:&tems.
iii. As for other Tests. meaningfu~ testing requ1>es cooperation and prediction
of weatr,er.
3. Test temporarily increased W8.1! height
a. Procedure: instan ternp0(ary construc:tion site norse type noise barriers to
sirT • ...rlate the effect of increasing ti1e back t"leighf of t'le .......aIL Measure tll€ effect
of the mrJgation provided with a1d without the barr!er.
b. Pros:
L Demonstrate effectiveness of ins~all;ng a tan sound wa~ at back of be~l
(SFMI 1/10,91 Report, Arohi~ectu'ai Solution I).
ii. Ta[! (30-60') barriers are available from e Callforr.ia conlJactor spedaazing
in this work.
c. Cons:
i. 8arriers allaJ1able have only moderate few frequency mitigation capabiiity.
ii. Unknown impact on cross-winds and d~aft in facility.
m. Unknown ability to ins tan required telephone pole pmngs at top of bov-.1
It,rough eJdsting landfill cap.
iv. As fO( other Tests, meaningful 1esting requires accurate prediction of
weather to schedule.
•
-
Ms. Unda Fors~rg
May 15.19$2
Page 11
v. Likely cos! •.
d. Resource;
The following finn specializes In erectir1g temporary cOlis!ruction-.site type sound
barriers:
Mr. Peter J. Sh:...~
8ravo Environmental Sound Conifer Company
3858 "'len Read
Bakersfield, CA 93312
Te:: (805)837-9746
4. Test temporarf flying canop)'.
a Procedure: Temporarily insta;: a ~arge, heav'f-weight ca:lop~' designed to
demOP.strate effectiveness of a permane.nt car~op, solution.
b. Pres;
i. Directly demoostra!es effectiveness of "Flying Canopy" (SFMI 1/10/91
Report,. Architectural So!u.1ion 3).
c. Cons:
i.. lnstanation of a large surface over a occupied seating area in\iclves
considerable rev,ew by parties ~cludi:"!--:9 me fire marshall hav~ng jurisdiGtion
and potentiany loca: bu~ding authorities.
ii. Actual instanation wourd require coordin3ted design atld engrneerrng to
minimize impact on ventTration, draft, sitennes, etc.
iii. Likely eosts
5. Test Effect of Reduction in Sound levels on Complaints
a, Procedure: On evenjrY:::Js ""'7th considerable complaJnt activlty, in conjunction with
MEasurement Program 3, coordinate managed reduction of sound levels to meet
objective target {reductlon to le .... el of ambtE::nt, .3 dB above ambient, or simDar).
Measure change in impact sound level in neighborhood and impact orl complaint
rate.
~ ftlltM: & Nodlo ...... ta.lnc.r ~n for hi Suolr ~r'I·"'roo-.meni
~1~'foj_Con~ I i"";ro<\I'llI!~~IErog;roeEMg I Sound&"lIir<l3.'~ I WVt.FilmProl<'C"Qn~r:ll'm.; I T~~llg'''''''9&Rq~ir,c:
The~~Bvi)d;r'oQ / IOOn.Ern~'Il,S.J,",16(j I Scnfror.=;o..CA'1<11IQ5.t;rli' J fc>.W.5··2~.j·.3lC' .
Son mr-c..t5al (~l5) 2(3 dC5 I ~::=-"-"9£'iu(2lJ.) :/:2·"cm
I. ~ •
-
Ms. linda FOfsberg
May 15, 1992
Page 12
b. Pros:
L Would directly estabGsh rela:ionship betv-;een bo'lNi edg~ le ..... els and impact
sound levels.
i. Would endeavor to estabf:sh re-Iationsh;p betwesii impact levels arJd
complairlt activity.
c. Cons:
L Wou Id be extremely difficult to coorolnate without prior know!edge (from
weather study) of likely nights of high ~e'{ets of complaints.
ii. Even v..ith pr}or kncw!edge of which nights are likely to be problematic.
would be very difficult to coordinate w:U-. J:.oerfarming artists in a meaningful
manner. Umited or no cooperation should be anticipated from mos~ artists.
iii. Even given complete cooperation from the artis,s. concert sound ieve1s vary
considerably and wil1 ·creep up· with Lme regard1ess of tlle intention of the
operator ~o control them throughout the test
iv. Complaints activity stems from both actual leve!s of impact:ng sound,
instrumentation used on piece, lyriC content, complainers prior complaint
history (both that evening and on previous evenings) and time of day. The
relationship bet-Neen a redudlon in impact lE"vels and a reduction in
complaints may thus be tMficu~ to de'ermir;e.
6. Test Effect of Reduction in Sound leveis on Cor.:piairl~'S
a Procedure: After evenings wl!h considerabie complaint act~ .. ity, using installed
touring sound system, apply 1est tones at multip:e freq'.Jencies and at multiple
levels to oetermine the ma,;(fmum sound levels in the Amphitheatre that would
have met an objectNe criteria in Palo Alto (at level of ambient, 3 dB above
ambient, or similar). Measure norlzontal and vertical dispersion of subject sound
system to determine weather unusual design or implementation contribi.lted to
problem.
b. Pros:
i. Direct:y estab~shes maximum Omits Df1 :5ound levels at the facility needed
to meet a g;yen criteria in the neighborhoods.
Smit!1, ~1noI!! Mt()O)naKi, In,-i ~n 'ior h '6u<lr :........-o<'.me<1r
~AmI.dta,. NQiwCorwtJ; I !iWIroI".mllrIIU~,6,c'NSh:()1 ~i~ I Soo"r"(J& VIO«lSI"~'"" J A./\i&~"m ?~Sr$'~S I Tft'()lt"I! l'911ir><:& R'9';;~ ~A.:difuwd!kJi1d",rw;; f lOO~tmbor1:'O<.~o S .... Ufj I 5<7"ro:Y0SC(l.CA'i'.IiQ5·1;:17 I ~["'))Z~3 . .I3Ia ~
;0" I'ro....-:.v:;\oi151 t43-.. )O~ I ~ Aroge~:"2i:3f 3:22·400:,
•
j
!
I
I.
-
------.","'----.~~"'--"'-"'-....,""', _ ..
Ms. Unda forsberg
May 15,1992
Page 13
c. Cons:
o
L Would be extremely difficult 10 coordinate w!thout prior knowledge {fr'Jlll
weather study} or fjkety nights or high leve's of compraints.
ft. Even w'rth prkx knowledge of which nights are !ikely to ~ probiematic,
woufd be v'Cry diffictlit to coordinate wrth t'le touring sound companies, who
are gsnera:!y tying to pack their systems immediate'y after the show.
Moreover. most tourir:g sound companies regard the performance and
implementation of their systems 8S pwpn"etary infor.ilatFDn.
iii. lnformation is rargely redundant wrt, that obtainable through Measurements
4 or S.
We appreciate the opportuntty to prepare this ~ist of atternativE tests and measurer:,erlt
programs for your consideration. Following the City's review of these approaches with
the m!erasted parties, we would be p!eased to meet and discuss io\'ith you t~e that are
of lnterest In the interim, p:ease don't hesitate to can if ,'ou ha'/e any questions.
~fth.FaI,/$f & McDoooId !r>e. i ~~, 100" lilt 9.iJrh E"r""cnm..,..
~t'1)'~&"'ot-~CoM-e1 j C~"IlI)nm.n~"'OiJ",1;:cl E;"lQ"'£{>fl~~" ~u~~Vodo>ooS~'¥r·' I A. .I. F"~m P'OI/'(1I()J'il"~~" I T"~~€"~H:",",& R'';;iT.t;l
~ Ai..o:Jrltrtd s..,.\i' .... ! lOO The ';mboJoo"..(lQorfU SUH1'" 261: ! San Frc:'(l>(c. CA ;~la5--121j f fa. 1~15: 24J·13,C
SlJ"f'lJl""(;v.~I.'S):2'j·..(3iJ"S i '-01r\,r,g1'l..,,·2rJ;i3Z2.4COO
;
, -
EXHIBIT 11
-----------,-----
,Probably ~f C!chiel,t~ng, I New,
g,cz.~s \,t:$·ub1• t.eio'#t) 1,Data
, ,I • -_. '---
1.
1
3, Octave ---+-$-,-,-SO-O--t-,-O-r-$-'-6-,O-C-,O-t ;~71% : 17% Ii -1-3--1
Bands in Palo
Alto and Mt.
~ew
,-.-~~ I -~--.~
4. Simultaneous 10 .$44,000 9% 9'",'0 3 $4,400
Octave 8a n d s
@ Bowl Edge
and in Palo Alta I
8 5. 'Weather $24,300 "'''0.2 I $24,300 2~~';-----I
~."tjo_n ___ -t ___ "" __ T_ .. _.---t-_.-;--+---:
6, Combination $28.700 10 $68,300 17% 17% I 8 J'
of 4 & 5
• On. fl:ala of 1 to '0, ""1l1 this leSI Clr m"!\Irem<!lI11 Jlrr)vide new or S'lOlrUlil:.!Il1t ~&tI. 1 m"o"5 .... O 1'" .. d.11 (dill al'eoit'ly
.xi~tll. '0 mea>'lS thi5 t •. ,1 c:. mel,uremenf t,.,:J "01 be." ",ade c. ~i1T~l.a1 dal .. is rlOI .I(!~.abre.
Notfl 2:: !aslld 0., -=Il'iel:ting J./'I'IoCl"'[r.! for teninll ~u"l t)"r",e II''''' .rl .. , [.abo, D"~'I C,,'~r:", whj~l'f ,,"' ... ll'Iel eer'>(f,tici>5 ~151CHie.r.:f
Jl.ocWc.e m()SI compr .. ,,~.
Goa";':
3mQIllhs II: $<i500pe,",,,r.rr, .. 119,5::00 Jllu$ !l.al:i"'01 ret 10d~'''$ crte'tin~ @S4aO.,."d!J'I'" ~4,1!:OO
TOlai '" ~24,JOO,
·1: ~~'\JC,~-or ;;-iirriri.ete, "oi.., e"""'-PI";n'~ i" P';c All" er ,·~~u.,!:ti;'. View. l 2. 'Reduce ~{&liminil .. m!Jg:s,u~ M)iu le1l0=:5 from Sl'Icte'rrla 'A:T"lpr';li1ut .. , i" Pal" AllO or Mo""(~i,, v..w
L
-;-;"'",.; <",,,,,.<-··Il~f .~.--_ _._o& ____ . _. ___ • ___ .............. "
$ Other l~o!al
i
EXHIBIT III
·I·-~r;bablv C; --r~~a
achieving goals I sibi
lity
•
1.
1. Sound
system mock
up
$25,000 $40.000 9 1$15,000
---+-------1------11--+--+--11---,
19
%
2. Test
"house"
SOL;nc'
system
3. Increase
wa!! heigr~! __
4. Temp
$25,000 $50,000
$25,000 $500,000
----
$25,000 $500.000
Flying
Car,opy ---------b 5. level $20,000 $0
Reduction vs
Complaints
during
$75,000 15 9
%
$525.000 18 2
%
$525,000 14 2
Co" "
I $20,000 25
%
2
concert 1-==::':"-+-----------------+--1--11--"1
$15,000 $50,000 $65,000 18 2
%
6, level
Reduction vs
Complaints
after concert ~-~._~==~====~====~~ __ ~~d
• Seal. fram 1 -10, 1 " extt.l'l'leIy inf'!:a3ibil!:, 10 " jca~ib:.
'~~,;,;.,
::i,U::~: j,>_~~.~~,~'.Ve!i~,~le 11~" cctmplai~I' 111 P.I~ .-JIll Q: M~ ... n!ai" v.tW,
2 r, :,;:,_;+R~I::,.:Q/~,lin,;~i~ ..r.e~nm:d "';'i,'. 1.v~l" f,em Shol<:~". Ampr-.;tr,=~l"U in P.ia ,1.110 oJ, MO\Jnl1!T" Vie ....
,
~ --j
.~,:.
·L ::---:~ ~ •
.. ~
I
t
•