The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0452.0911 1 I I October 3, 1991 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, Califor~ia Bhorelt_:D8 Amphitheater in Mountain vie"! Members of the Council: On September 19, 1991, I infori1lsd you that 'We had begun to experience complaints regarding the operation of tr,e Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain Vielol'. This was particular-ly disheartening since, up until that time, the steps instituted by the City of Mountain View pursuant to their consultant study seemed to have been effective. You will recall that Mountain View, partly as a result of actions by the Palo Alto City Council, engaged the sp.rvices of an acoustical consultant in september 1990. The purpose of the consultant study .... as to find causes and develop alternatives to reduce r.oise problerr,s originating at the facility. The results of the consultant study ~ere reported to the Mountain View council in e,rly 1991. Upon receiving the report the Mountain Vim.' Council instructed its staff to implement four recommendations to help alleviate. the problem. The Mountain Viey staff was further instructed to report back to its City Council at the close of the 1991 concert season, so that additional steps could be considered if necessary. Thereafter, the Mayor of Mountain View vrote to Mayor Sutorius to ex-plair. the noise abatement pracedures .... 'hich ""'ould be followed during summer 1991 (an excerpt of that le.tter is attached). During ~ost of the past summer, c~mplaints dropped to a very lo~ level {this experience ~as even hailed in the local press as a sign that the longstanding problem might be r~solved}~ As we now know, the problem persists and further action will need to be taken~ Consequently, "'e :have taKen several steps in line 'With Council's previous directions: 1. We have contacted Mountain View staff and received assurances that the matter -Old 11 be b:r ought back before the Mountain Vie .... Council as directed by them. we. ... i 11 have a Palo Alto represe.ntative present at that discussiDn to urge the Mountain VieW' council to take additional steps as outl ined by their consultant study~ CMR:452: 91 • .ro" ..... -.-. / Page Tva 2. We have been in direct contact with representatives cf the amphitheater operator, They are aware that the step3 taken to date have not proven effective and that Palo Alto intends to pursue other re:medies. They have pledged their cooperation. J. The City Attorney continues his review cf our legal position, following the request made in early July. He ~ill report to the council on his findings. 4. We are engaging the services of an independent consultant to review the report prepared for Mountain view~ The purpose of this review is to provide us with an assessment o~ the alternatives presented in the Mountain Vie ..... report. In addition, we ..... ill instruct our consultant to suggest solutions .-orthy of investigation that may not be included in the report~ Our consultantrs 'Work will not involve original research/investigation but will be limiteod to assessing the original report on our behalf. Tl"le 'Work will be completed prior to the Mountain view city Council revie~ noted in (1) above. The con~ultant may also review matters in connection with the City Attorney's legal analysis~ I will conti~ue to keep you closely advised~ Respectfully submitted, Gfl ;; WIt';! ZANER--- City Manager Attachment c .... ~ :Kevin D,.,;.gqan. City Manager, City of Mountain view] Dan Scher, Bill Gr-ahaCl Presents CMR:452:91 \ , ~be Honorable Jaok SutoTiua January 29, 1991 Pag_ 3 aolutlons because of the gue~tlonabl. t~al1bl11ty of .ome of th~ optlo~s, the potentIal diffleolti&a of 1mple~Bntlng .~ of the option., the lac9~ ~xpendltures whioh voald be required, and MOst iMPOrt.~tly, because there vas no 9Uar'fttee that any of tho proposals$ ~ith the exception of co.pletel~ Enel~lin~ t~R facility, vou~d eliminate a11 the sound lapacte. Given the drawbacks of all the proposals devel?ped by th& conaultant, the Mo~ntajn Vlew City CQUnell declde~ O~ the followin9 oor.cert sound ~it19atlon plan tor the upcom1n9 1991 Qonaert .e.~on: • Shore1ine AMphitheatre ~ill more ~trlngently enforc. a 99 aHA limit for Bound a~ the bact of the f5~Jlity·. lawn area tor all concerts, not jUgt concerts ~n nights vhen .eDth~~ iaver.lons are present. • Sho~ellne Amphitheat~e will ~.ylew weath&r datA fto. the w~athe[ station ~ln Alviso) which i. the closest .t.tlo~ to the facilLty betore each p&rformance to det.ralne 1f we_thet conditione m4y eauee eon~ert lound l~pacts in outlying n.19hborhood •• If the weather data indicates a Boun~ i~p4et prOblea .. y oc~r for that perfor~nce, Shoreline ~tl£f will work with tbe perfot_lng artist to reduce ,ound l@vele vlthiA tb~ ~1the.tre 90 t~at inpacts can b~ reduced and/or ellm1Mt.d. Shotelln. Amphltneatre will full, callbrate the Bound monitorfn9 equipment ift its tac11ity each year to enaure that accurate Bound level information 1. beln~ used .s a baaia for it. 8OUD~ a1t19ation elfoTta. While tbis ~oncert Bou~d mit1~ltion plan will roost likely not eliminate all of the sound impact' occurrtn9 In Dei;hborhooda, it should help to reduce the impacts felt In these areas. 1 believe that this sound Mltl;ation 8tr&teg~ i. & reasonable approach. It is supported by the accc"..Lat1eill engin4erlng: eonsultl~ til», SPMIJ City of MountaIn View staff, and the ShorelIne Amphitheatre operatQr, SOP. \ "