HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/2005 - STAFF REPORTS CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31095 — CASE NO. 5.0973 — PD 304 - THE
BOULDERS — WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT - 751 WEST VIA ESCULEA
—APN's 504-150-002, 504-150-008, AND 504-150-009:
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Office of the City Clerk
SUMMARY:
On March 2, 2005 the City Council received public testimony and continued the public
hearing to March 16, 2005. At the meeting of March 16, 2005, the public hearing was
continued to April 6, 2005, then subsequently continued to April 20, 2005. The
Applicant has requested the City Council continue the Public Hearing to May 4, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Continue the Public Hearing to May, 4, 2005 with no public testimony; and
2. Direct the City Clerk to post a Notice of Continued Public Hearing.
nes Thompson, City Clerk David H. Ready, City Manzfer
Item 1 . A .
Aur. l 2005 4 : 17PM 'EALY HEMPHILL BLASDEL & OLESON No . B303 P . 2
LAW OFFICCS OF
EALY, HEMPHILL, ELASDEL & OL.ESON, LLP
A CALIFORNIA LIMI715V L(AB/LITYPARTNERSNIP
W. Curt E'aly 777 E Tahquitz Cenyon Way, Suite 328
6rnlly Perr/Hemphill Palm Springs, Callorn/a®2262
(]lane C. Blaede/ Telephone (760)320-5077
Gregory R, Pleson Faos/ml/e (760)320-0607
April 12, 2005
Douglas C, Holland, Esq.
City Attorney - City of Pelm Springs
3200 Tehquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: John Wessman's Boulders Project
Dear Mr. Holland:
At the request of my client, John Wessman, Hans Giroux reviewed the .
Peer Review Report produced by Eilars related to the Boulders Project. Attached
you will find a copy of Mr. Giroux's response. As you can see, Mr. Giroux believes
that Eilars is incorrect in several areas, and Mr. Giroux further believes that the
analysis he has completed as a pert of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Boulders remains both valid and complete. We would request that a copy of Mr.
Giroux's memo attached hereto be entered into and be made a pert of the
Administrative Record on the Boulders project.
Although we believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
adequately analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Boulders project, my
client nonetheless recognizes that the project's neighbors have created a significant
amount of controversy related to this project. Given that fact, and the need to
assure that he can fully and adequately defend his project if and when challenged,
Mr. Wessman has elected to do an Environmental Impact Report an the Boulders
project, We are, therefore, asking that the Boulders project be removed from the
City Council's agenda until such time as we have completed the EIR process.
Please be advised, however, that the EIR will be based on the application that was
submitted by Mr, Wessman and deemed complete by the City on November 9,
2004.
-
i
! =�
W- 14, 2005 4: 17PM EALY HEMPHILL BLASDEL & OLESON No , 0302 P , 3
[AW OFFrc,E6OF
E4LY, HEMPHIIL BLASDEL&OLESOX LLP
April 12, 2006
I Page 2
Should you have questions on this request, please contact me at your
earliest convenience. As always, thank you for your cooperation In these matters.
Since y.
Emily rr Hemphill
Ealy, a phill, Blasdal Et Oleson, LLP
EPH/les
Enclosure.
cc: John Wessman
a Pr . 14, 2005 4. 11PM DLY HEMPHILL BLRSDEL & OLESON No 0303 P . 4
MEMO
To-, Michael Braun;Wessman
From- Ham Giroux, Senior Analyst
Subject: "Boulders"Peer Review
Date: March 31, 2005
Via a-mail: 2 pages transmitted
Our Reference No.: r04-069
We have reviewed the report prepared by Ellar Associates dated March 29,2005. The review
notes that the technical studies in support of the MND did not contain a BACT analysis for PM-
10,underestimated the PM-10 emission rate because the ARB computer model applies statewide
averages to disturbance area, and did not consider a cige from ancillary equipment used to handle
oversize boulders or used to construct the initial berm. The poor review further notes that the
project can.likely not be constructed without either removal or breakage of large quantities of
oversize rock.
We would reply as follows.,
1. The MOU between the City of Palm Springs and the SdA QMD acknowledges that the
City's PM-10 control program for construction activities constitutes l3ACT, Projects can
not be built in palm Springs without the use of BACT for PM-10, and this requirement is
enforced by a full,-time SCAQMD inspector stationed in the Coachella Valley. The non-
BACT emissions calculations in the peer review are thus not relevant.
2, A,potentially larger daily disturbance area than the model prediction of 2.5 acres is
acknowledged. However,the peer review notes that necessary excavation of rock
clusters precludes massive simultaneous grading of large portions of the site on any
single day. The peer review also does not consider that a portion of the site will be
individually graded for custom,lots and this acreage should not be included in the total.
Even allowing for a somewhat larger daily grading area,within the limitations noted
above, and with mandatory use of BACT for PM-10,the eonolusioas of the air quality
technical study are unchanged as they relate to less-than-significant daily PM-10
emissions.
E W OCtAvIEN18fHW86SM.1tt-CAH9 CeNDU90ULAERAB1tARASVI8W3,31 45.DOC
-APr, 14 2005 4 : 11PM EALY HEMPHILL BLASDEL & OLESON No .0303 P. 5
3. Ancillary activities are specifically exempt from the noise limits in the City of Palm.
Springs noise ordinance, The ordinance clearly anticipates that mobile equipment
r exhaust and esrfb�h ndling activities will generate temporary noise levels that are
unavoidable, They afire considered to have a less-than-significant impact if they are
confined to hours of least sensitivity. This rationale has been applied to the CEQA,
documentation of every major construction project in Palm Springs, Ancillary activities
such as building the temporary berm and handling of oversize material prior to crushing
or other disposition was therefore not explicitly analyzed consistent with City precedent
on a variety of other projects,
4, -The grading contractor who reviewed the site requirements anticipated that the bulk of
oversize boulders could be incorporated into the"natural" landscaping,particularly along
pad separation slopes, That information wan the basis for assuming that rock breaking
and/or off-site hauling would not be required. if there is credible evidence that the
project can not be constructed without breaking and/or hauling, then further analysis
would be necessary to evaluate noise impacts from this activity,
We agree with the Eilar Report recommendations that alternative noise mitigation measures
shoixld be considered, and that the noise standard that we adopted as our threshold of significance
is likely too stringent. We continue to believe that the proposed earthhock berm is superior for
noise control than the suggested wall configuration(Alternative Noise Control Item 1).
However, we would concur with placement of a secondary barrier close to the property line of
the closest off-site residences as a secondary noise abatement measure,
Based upon our review of the Eilar Report,we believe that it raises no substantive issues that
predict any"new" impacts other than if the project can not be constructed as planned because of
excessive oversize material: The change in the assumed disturbance area still does not elevate
PM 10 emissions above thresholds, .A.grading contractor should provide a definitive statement
whether the project can be built without rock breaking or substantial O-sitc hauling. The
mitigation measures should be further strengthened to include a temporary secondary barrier near
off-site homes and noise control measures during off-hours as shown on page 11 of the Bilar
Report.
swoc�etrnarmwsemux.cxascar�oornsov�,tneae�ln.�i.aenoc
Apr , 20 - 2005 3 : 25PM EALY HEMPHILL BLASDEL & OLESON No .0527 P . 212
LAIN OFFICES OF
EALY, HEMPHILL, BLASDEL & OLESON, LLP
A CALIFORN/A LIMITED LIAB/LITYPARTNERSH/P
W, Curt Ealy 777E, 7'ehquirz Canyon Way, Suite 926
Emily Perri HemphiN Pe/m Springs, CWIfrrrn/e 9228,2
Diane C. B/aerie/ Te%phone (760)320-5977
Qregory R. O/eson Faes/mlie (760)320-9507
April 20, 2006
Doug Holland
City Attorney City of Palm Springs
3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
RE: WESSMAN DEVELOPMENTm BOULDERS PROJECT
Dear Mr. Holland,
As you know, my client John Wessman has been giving serious consideration to
the best approach towards completing the Entitlement process for the Boulders Project
in the City of Palm Springs. In the course of attempting to make this determination, he
has considered carefully, possibilities for quick settlements of the issues related to
Boulders as well as those related to Crescendo, and has also considered statements
made by parties opposing both Projects. Although Mr. Wessman continues to believe
that the mitigated negative declaration for the Boulders Project fully and adequately
discloses the environmental impact of the Project, and provides for mitigation of those
impacts to a level which is less than significant. Nonetheless Mr. Wessman is aware of
the high likelihood of a challenge under the California Environmental Equality Act against
the Boulders Project in the event of its approval.
After careful consideration, therefore, my client has finally determined that he
would prefer to process the Boulders Entitlement Applications through the use of an
Environmental Impact Report which considers the relevant issues. Given this
determination, we are by here requesting that City Council remove the Boulders Project
from its agenda at this time so that we may meet with the City In order to discuss the
scope of the proposed EIR. We would further request that the City act as quickly as
possible to engage the services of an Environmental Consultant to complete the FIR,
Should you have questions on this request, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
E-�
Emily or i Hemphill
EALY,UAEMPHILL, BLASDEL £r OLESON, LLP.
ll� C ✓c�. ,
EILAR ASSOCIATES
ACOUSTICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
March 29, 2005
City of Palm Springs Job #A50314N2/A2
Department of Planning Services
Attention: Gary Wayne
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Post Office Box 2743
Palm Springs, California 92263
SUBJECT: c4PEER" REVIEW OF AIR QUALITY STUDY AND ROCI{ CRUSHER NOISE STUDY AND
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION OF ADEQUACY OF CEQA ANALYSIS FOR THE
"BOULDERS"PROJECT,TTM 31095
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
At the request of the City of Palm Springs, Eilar Associates has conducted a peer review of the
Noise Impact Analysis report dated July 7, 2004, pertaining to construction equipment impacts
created by rock crushing, and the Air Quality Analysis dated June 29, 2004, prepared by Hans
Giroux & Associates for all site construction activities. This project is the site development and
construction of the proposed "Boulders" residential sub-division project located in Palm Springs,
California; a 48-home, 30.4 acre residential subdivision.
The `Boulders" Project proposal includes the use of a portable rock crusher for site development.
According to information obtained in the environmental planning documents provided to Eilar
Associates, the development of this site, as proposed, will involve approximately 140,000 cubic
yards of balanced earthwork; because of the large amount of rocks and boulders, a significant
amount of material most be crushed on-site, or else exported from the site to be crushed and returned
to the project site. The documents indicate that there is to be a prohibition of rock breaking, but no
provision was noted as to how the boulders would be handled that are larger than the capacity of the
rock crusher.
The Geotecluiical Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Southwest notes several important
elements which should be considered in the following peer review and evaluation discussion:
1. "The site is covered with significant volume of cobbles and boulders that will be a significant
impact on the grading and subsequent construction of the proposed site improvements."
2. "Water lines are currently present on-site" (from the existing water storage tanks). "A significant
portion of the water lines has been placed on grade due to the difficulty of removing existing
rock."
3. "Two exploratory borings were attempted to observe the soil profile. Because of the abundance
of cobbles and boulders, after multiple attempts at each boring location, the drilling operation
was terminated with the deepest boring about 2 feet."
539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206, Encinitas, CA 92024 760-753-1865 -Fax 760-753-2597
iiifo@eilarassociates.com
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of"Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 2
4. "The boulders observed at the surface were noted to be up to 8 feet in size at different location
across the site."
5. "We estimate that cobbles and boulders comprise in excess of 50% and may be as high as 75%
of the alluvial material."
6. "Native materials will require specialized grading equipment to properly handle the large
anticipated volume of rock."
7. "The grading recommendations provided below do not account for additional rock that may be
encountered as a result of the excavation of swimming pools or other subterranean structures.
Particularly where very large rocks are encountered that also protrude under and support or
partially support adjacent structures."
8. Excavation and Utility Trenches: "The resulting trench could be considerably wider than
anticipated as a result of encountering cobbles and boulders."
We reviewed the noise and air quality studies, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and related
documents provided to us by the City of Palm Springs prior to March 10, 2005. We also met with
City Staff on March 11, 2005
The City of Palm Springs has determined that tinder the CEQA Review Process, all site activities
associated with the proposed Crusher are subject to review, even those activities which would
normally only be controlled by normal construction noise control ordinances.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Air Quality
The Giroux & Associates Air Quality Analysis provides a generally good overview of the existing
conditions including meteorology, climate, ambient air quality standards, and baseline air quality for
the City of Palm Springs and surrounding areas. The report provides an analysis of the construction
air quality emissions based on reasonable and "generally accepted standards" for air quality
modeling analysis.
The "accepted standards" used for predicting construction air quality provided by the model utilized
in the Giroux & Associates study show that the project will be in compliance. However, the model
used for this analysis is deficient in that it fails to account for two project-specific types of
conditions for which the model was never designed to evaluate: 1) The main deficiency is that
individual lots to be developed at this site are significantly larger than accounted for by the basic
computer model simulation, so the standard air quality model used by Giroux significantly
underestimates the actual simultaneous total disturbed site acreage; and 2) A minor deficiency is that
the analysis did not account for the potential impacts related to movement or handling of boulders
Eilar Associates • 539 Encinitas Boulevard,Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 92024 •760-753-1865 •Fax 760-753-2597
City of Patin Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of`Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 3
too large for the rock crusher. Because of these two items, the overall analysis mrderestimates the
total site particulate emissions.
The entire project-related rock crushing and transport requires a Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) Analysis to be done to demonstrate that the proposed air quality controls (including the
Project's Proposed 1-14 Mitigation Measures) would adequately bring this project into conformance
with Regional Air Quality Standards. This additional BACT air quality modeling and analysis would
be necessary to produce a fully adequate CEQA Document with mitigation measures for the City of
Palm Springs.
Noise
The Noise hnpact report addresses the impacts and mitigation to the adjacent residential properties
from the proposed use of an on-site rock crusher, which is a machine used to crush large rocks that
are up to two and a half feet in diameter. The described noise mitigation world be from a temporary
wall, which would be replaced with a surrounding berm created from the stockpile of crushed rocks.
Subsequent mernos regarding the plarming for the Crusher site state that the site would be excavated
6 feet below the bean grade level. This would increase the effective bean height accordingly.
The Noise Impact Analysis provided by Giroux Associates is reasonable and accurate to the extent
of analyzing Crusher impacts. We agree that the planned noise control bean and Crusher excavation
will provide sufficient shielding to control the Crusher noise to a reasonable impact to the
residences.
The Giroux Noise study is incomplete to the extent that it does not address other potentially
significant noise impact issues associated with the handling of the on-site rock, particularly boulders
too large for the Crusher, and equipment used for building the plat-Hied bens. These issues were
assumed in the Giroux-prepared study to be addressed by the City of Palm Spring Municipal
Ordinances, and not subject to further evaluation in his original study.
On this basis, further noise analysis of the entire project operation (crushing, transport, general site
construction activities, and oversize boulder handling) needs to be performed in order for an
adequate CEQA Document and mitigation measures to be produced for the City of Palm Springs.
EILAR ASSOCIATES EVALUATION OF GIROUX AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Public agencies within jurisdiction over air quality include the United State Enviromnental
Protection Agency (EPA), the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Due to the relatively high level of emissions of
certain pollutants, the region including Palm Springs is currently identified as a non-attainment area
for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Therefore, any incremental increase is a significant regional
problem, because the region has not yet attained standards. This can be potentially mitigated to a
level of less than significant by the application of the control measures recommended in draft 2003
Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), including additional project-level air quality
analysis.
Eilar Associates •539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206,Encinitas,CA 92024 •760-753-1865•Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of`Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 4
The Air Quality Management Planning in the report is based on the use of a "standard" accepted
construction air quality prediction method. The described impacts from the site construction
activities as analyzed in this report state a finding that it is in compliance with standards. Further, the
conclusion was reached that the 48 unit project is less than significant from a growth standpoint for
the region because this growth has been incorporated into the area plarmed by the CVAG for Palm
Springs. Various problems have been noted in our evaluation as the model has been applied to the
specific project under evaluation.
Peer Review of Air Quality Management Report
1. Air Quality Standards
Study:
The standards for studying air quality and ozone are the PM-2.5 and PM-10 standards of the
State of California.
Comment:
These are the generally accepted standards for air quality analysis
2. Methodology
Study:
The Air Quality Impact analysis was done using the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(1993) and the UREMIS2002 model
Comment:
The prediction of the models shows that the project would be in compliance with the standards.
However, the model takes very limited input to yield results; in this case 48 units were used with
the program's preset conditions. This resulted in a "maximum daily acreage disturbed" of 2.5
acres, and implies acreage of 9.6 acres of developed area for the 48 units, not 30.4 acres. This
inherent modeling error does not provide an accurate or satisfactory assessment of the "true"
project impacts for this type of project.
3. Impacts
Study:
The study states that the impacts are calculated from a"maximum daily acreage disturbed" of 2.5
acres. This size of the site plus the Crusher, when combined with Best Available Control
Methods, yields an impact which is less than significant.
Eilar Associates • 539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206,Encinitas,CA 92024 •760-753-1865-Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of`Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 5
Comment:
The prediction, if based only on these standard methods, would be correct. However, the larger
lot sizes, plus the likely construction methods to be used at the site due to the large quantity of
rocks and boulders, presents the potential for much higher disturbed area than was used in the
Giroux analysis.
Air Quality—Critical Evaluation of Model Assumptions and Results
The standard analysis model utilized requires very limited input to yield results. For this site the 48
units was used with the programs preset conditions. This resulted in a "maximum daily acreage
disturbed" of 2.5 acres. We confirmed the original estimates by independently running the same
URBMIS 2002 model. What was not said is that the model estimated that the total acreage would be
9.6 acres for the 48 units. Because the project is actually 30.4 acres, the estimate of 2.5 acres of
disturbed area is probably about one third of what should have been used. If we consider that the
project is going to be mass graded, it does not seem logical that maximun amount of area to be
graded at one time would be only 8 percent of the project (2.5 acres). The amount to be graded at
one time is probably in the range of 20% (6.08 acres) to 30% (9.12 acres). This would result in the
range of 160.5 pounds per day to 240.8 pounds per day using the factors developed in the original
report.
20% = PM-10=6.08 acres X 26.41bs/acre/day= 160.5 lbs/day
30% = PM-10=9.12 acres X 26.4 pounds/acre/day=240.8 lbs/day
Standard Mitigation Reductions:
20% =PM-10-6.08 acres X 10.0 lbs/acre/day— 60.8 lbs/day
30% = PM-10=9.12 acres X 10.0 pounds/acre/day= 91.2 lbs/day
Without mitigation, this would be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant
air quality impact. Therefore, substantially more controls will be required to mitigate project air
quality impacts. These controls can only be determined following the performance of a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) Analysis. These additional control measures will, in part,
necessitate increased water utilization on-site, which is also a factor to be considered prior to project
approval.
However, applying standard mitigation measures as indicated in the report could reduce emissions to
a range of 60.8 to 91.2 lbs/day, instead of the 25 lbs/day indicated in the original report; this would
be 40%to 60% of the adopted 150 lbs/day threshold. If we accept the estimated emissions from rock
crashing of 67 lb/day, we have total emissions in the range of 127.8 lb/day to 158.2 1bs/day, or 85%
to 105% of the significance threshold. This estimate may still be low because the rock cracking or
Eilar Associates • 539 Encinitas Boulevard,Suite 206, Encinitas,CA 92024 •760-753-1865 •Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of`Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 6
breaking, or other methods of handling, have not been considered in the crushing operation, either in
the original analysis or in this critique. Another problem is that the site contains a significant amount
of rock, that may necessitate rock grubbing, causing additional Air Quality Impacts. This issue
should be addressed is part of farther BACT Analysis, which may identify more extensive emission
controls, including additional air quality emission controls necessary for over-size rock export
(hauling) and return trips to the project site.
FILAR ASSOCIATES—CRITICAL EVALUATION OF NOISE ANALYSIS
The City of Palm Springs does not provide guidelines for long-term construction noise impacts. The
City of Palm Springs' Noise Impact Review develops the standard of a 53 dBA LEQ (hourly), as a
noise control guideline for the project.
Crusher noise levels were measured on several types of Crushers, performing work similar to work
being proposed for the Palm Springs `Boulder" Project. These noise levels were analyzed and
summarized in order to create an expected noise impact level.
The analysis states that with noise control being provided by the planned stockpile bean, the impacts
to the adjacent residences would be in compliance with the self-imposed noise standard.
Noise and Sound Level Descriptors
All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terns of decibels (0), with
A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels
are expressed as LEQ. Unless a different time period is specified, LEQ implies a period of one hour.
Some of the data may also be presented as octave-band-filtered and/or A-octave-band-filtered data,
which are a series of sound spectra centered about each stated frequency, with half of the bandwidth
above and half of the bandwidth below each stated fi-equency. This data is typically used for
machinery noise analysis and barrier-effectiveness calculations. Short duration peak noise levels are
expressed as LMAx.
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where sound levels during
evening hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. have an added 5 dB weighting, and sound levels during nighttime
hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting. This is similar to the Day-Night Sound
Level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with 10 dB added weighting on the same nighttime hours
but no added weighting on the evening hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on
A-weighted decibels. These data unit metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement
and municipal noise ordinances and regulations, for land-use guidelines, and enforcement of noise
ordinances. Farther explanation can be provided upon request.
Noise emission data is often supplied per the industry standard format of Sound Power, which is the
total acoustic power radiated from a given sound source as related to a reference power level. Sound
Power should not be confused with Sound Pressure, which is the fluctuation in air pressure caused
by the presence of sound waves, and is generally the format that describes noise levels as heard by
the receiver.
Filar Associates •539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206,Encinitas,CA 92024•760-753-1865 •Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of"Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 7
Sound Pressure is the actual noise experienced by a human or registered by a sound level instrument.
When Sound Pressure is used to describe a noise source it must specify the distance from the noise
source to provide complete information. Sound Power, on the other hand, is a specialized analytical
method to provide information without the distance requirement, but it may be used to calculate the
sound pressure at any desired distance.
Peer Review of Noise Impact Report
The following comments will address points taken from Hans Giroux's Noise Impact Analysis
report:
1. Noise Standards Utilized
Report:
The report determines an allowable impact standard of 53 dBA LEQ at the project property
lines will be utilized.
Coimnent:
The 53 dBA LEQ standard is very stringent. We know of no other City noise control guideline
that requires any construction project to maintain this low of a noise impact; typical
allowable construction noise impacts range from a low of 65 dBA LEQ to as high 75 dBA
LEQ. In our estimation an impact noise level planned to allow only 53 dBA LEQ for 8 horns
will result in a very low impact to the adjacent residences. The higher noise level limit of 60
to 65 dBA LEQ is reasonable and sufficient to have for crushing noise level impacts. (Some
municipalities have no limit, other than allowable hours for construction as a basis for
planing). The planned 53 dBA LEQ control level will probably be significantly below the
noise level of other construction activities going on at the project site and thus very difficult
to individually monitor.
2. Noise Methodology Utilized
Report:
Spherical spreading is used as the basis for distance attenuation.
Comment:
Spherical spreading is the basic standard for calculation of sound attenuation due to distance.
The analysis provides generally accurate prediction of impacts at close distances (typically,
within 500 feet). However, as the distance increases, sound transmission is increasingly
offset by atmospheric and ground absorption, so the resulting noise levels are generally less
than predicted by distance attenuation. This results in a conservative noise analysis for more
distant receptors, in that the actual noise levels are typically less than the calculated levels.
Filar Associates -539 Encinitas Boulevard,Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 9202d -760-753-1865-Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of"Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 8
3. Predicted Equipment Noise Levels
Report:
The analysis is based on a Crusher noise impact level of 90 dBA LEQ at 50 feet.
Comment:
In similar reports, our measurements and analysis have been based on a Crusher noise level
of 85 to 87 dBA LEQ. It is unlikely that the Crusher will actually produce a sustained noise
level of 90 dBA LEQ at 50 feet. Therefore, the noise level estimates are conservative.
4. Predicted Berm Noise Reduction
Report:
The analysis states that the berm used as a barrier will need to be 21.5 feet high to provide
the report goal attenuation of 14.5 dBA LEQ.
Comment:
This is the approximate insertion loss that would be expected with an 11 foot high noise
source, a 5 foot high receiver, and a noise source 25 feet from the barrier (with a simple hard
barrier). This is a reasonable evaluation of the noise source height. The berm will be a softer
barrier, and will have a significant thickness. Therefore, it will probably give slightly better
attenuation than this. This attenuation requires that the barrier height be maintained at all
times, with no breaks or reduction in height.
This is a conservative result with the planned Crusher height depth reduction of 6 feet.
The report allowable impact from the Crusher is very conservative (i.e. low noise impact to the
adjacent residents). The expected Crusher impacts and expected noise control levels are reasonable.
Thus, the crushing operation as described in this report would be expected to have impacts equal or
less than those required by this report.
Our Opinion of Potential Noise Impact Issues
Crusher Feed
In our analysis we have added the Crusher feed loader into the Crusher noise levels. This will
increase the overall Crusher noise level slightly, and because the loader is a moving noise
source, it may necessitate that a slightly larger barrier containment area may be required.
Filar Associates •539 Encinitas Boulevard,Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 92024 •760-753-1865 •Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of`Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 9
Benin Construction
Construction and removal of the bean is not analyzed, it was assumed that it is covered by
the basic construction allowable limits. We have used this same assumption in similar
planning.
The report does not analyze the significant impact from the materials delivery, and spreading
at the top of the berm. This requires that either a loader or a dump-truck drive onto the top of,
the berm, dump the material, and then back down from the berm.
Materials Size
The issue of oversize material handling for the Crusher has not been addressed. This site may
have significant quantities of materials which may not be fed directly into a Crusher. This
oversize material may require an on-site reduction in size even to allow export. Either of
these options may have significant noise impacts, including indirect impacts associated with
export and import operations for crushed rock transport.
Typical methods and information for material size reduction is discussed in the section
"Outstanding Issues".
Alternative Noise Control
1. An alternative to the use of a bean (which has inherent noise impacts), is a semi-permanent
noise control wall built on location.
The Crusher site could be excavated to a 6 to 8 foot depth, and a low berm of 6 to 8 feet
constructed around the pit. This berm could be topped with "K" Rail (concrete traffic
barriers), topped with a '/a" plywood wall to the required height. The plywood wall can have
a noise absorbent inner surface created by stapling a 2 inch thick run-faced fiberglass batting,
held in place with chicken-wire. A similar system can be used to surround the material lay-
down area to control handling noise. This significantly reduces the noise impacts to the total
site.
2. The berm/barrier as described above, could be built adjacent the impacted residences and
provide significant total site noise control.
3. If the crushing site could be relocated onto the nearby hndian reservation, which is south-west
of the site,noise mitigation for this off-site activity might not be required.
4. Alternatively, the rocks could be partially "dug in" on-site and used to create one or more
underground water run-off absorption field(s). The remaining material could be used to build
a perimeter fence and on slopes that have a limited export/ import of site materials. This
could relieve or reduce noise control requirements.
Eilar Associates •539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 92024 •760-753-1865 •Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of`Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 10
Crusher Vibration
Noise and vibration are typically assumed to differentiate between vibration that is transmitted
through the air and "heard" vs. vibration that is transmitted through solid or liquid and "felt'.
However, low frequency airborne noise i.e. noise generally below 125 Hz is often perceived as
vibration.
Ground Borne Vibration
Vibration was not addressed in the Crusher noise analysis report by Giroux however; vibration was
referenced in the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND states that ground
borne vibration for the Crusher and associated materials handling will be damped below the level of
hurnan perception and will have no structural impact.
We agree with this assessment, as it takes an extremely high level of ground borne vibration to be
felt at a distance greater than 150 feet unless the material is solid rock or there is a shallow ground
water table.
Air Borne" Vibration"
Crushing or breaking of large materials may generate significant low frequency airborne noise which
can induce vibration in windows and other lightweight structures. Due to the wave-length and
energy content, low frequency noise can cause impacts at considerable distances. This type of impact
is essentially not addressed in municipal regulations. It is stated in one project document that the low
frequency noise can be partially controlled by mixing smaller material with larger material; this is
intended to reduce the low frequency noise content of the Crusher.
It should be further noted that a berm is the best method for controlling low frequency noise
propagation.
Outstanding Issues
Oversize Materials: There may be boulders too large for the Crusher or even for off-site hauling.
For such boulders, the typical method for material size reduction is the use of an excavator mounted
"breaker". The noise from a large breaker may exceed 90 dBA at more than 200 feet away. The
noise from a breaker or a smaller "Hoe Ram" is severe, penetrating, and intrusive. Any project
approval should consider whether Hoe Rams or breakers are allowed on-site or nearby, at any time
or for any reason, without prior planning and approval. This should also apply to any drilling and
blasting, if hard rock is discovered below the surface.
We understand that the intention for this project is to prohibit rock breaking. However, none of the
documentation we have reviewed addresses impacts or mitigation related to handling of oversize
material.
Eilar Associates - 539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 92024 -760-753-1565 -Fax 760-753-2597
City of Pahn Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of"Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 11
Without on-site material size reduction, trucking would be necessary as part of this project. The
loading, handling, and hauling of even some large material can be a significant source of noise
impact in the area and should be addressed in the CEOA Compliance Documents, if rock breaking is
prohibited.
As an alternative to breaking or hauling, large boulders can be fractured on-site by process using
chemically expanding systems, which would require that each boulder be drilled and broken
individually. This method is expensive, but may be required if any very large boulders are
encountered which cannot otherwise be handled unless blasting is permitted. Planning should
include what methods will be used to handle any boulders which cannot be left on-site and are too
large for loading and removal on a truck.
Due to the high content of cobbles and boulders, a more expensive excavation (cut and fill
operation) will be required, than what is needed for a typical residential development.
The City of Palm Springs may wish to limit low frequency noise associated with the crushing as
part of project review, by incorporating a C-weighted project noise limit in addition to the A-
weighted noise limit.
Site Noise During Off Hours-Regulatory Measures
1. Site access should be restricted to construction horns only, except for the light vehicle
used for security patrols. No equipment maintenance, surveying, or any construction
activities should be allowed during non-authorized constriction hours.
2. Prior to construction hours, no construction equipment or any trucks shall be started up
on, or near the site.
3. Worker congregation on the site or adjacent to the site for more than 10 minutes before or
after construction activities should not be allowed.
4. Constriction equipment deliveries on-site or near the site, should be prohibited outside of
construction hours.
5. Delivery of construction materials to or near the site should be prohibited, outside of
construction hours.
The above regulations should be enforced by the City of Palm Springs. This can be done, for
example, with the use of a time-stamped digital camera photograph from any impacted residence,
verified by an independent party, and imposing a fine (such as $500 or more) to the contractor for
each incident.
Eilar Associates• 539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 92024 •760-753-1865 •Fax 760-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of"Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The studies prepared by Giroux Associates for Noise and Air Quality followed "generally accepted"
analysis standards; however, project-specific features and special circumstances of this project were
either omitted from the analysis or not fully evaluated. In this respect, Filar Associates has
determined that several analysis assumptions may be erroneous, and therefore, both studies are
deficient in scope and conclusions under CEQA Standards to completely identify and mitigate
potentially significant project noise and air quality impacts.
Given these considerations, the existing Giroux-prepared enviromnental studies and analysis are not
adequate as acceptable CEQA Compliance Documentation for the City of Palm Springs. Filar
Associates reconnnends that additional noise and air quality analysis, as outlined in this peer review
report, be performed in an effort to achieve an acceptable level of CEQA compliance, with
appropriate mitigation measures, to reduce project-related noise and air quality impacts to a level of
non-significance.
CERTIFICATION
This report is based on the information received and the on-site noise measurement data, and
represents a true and factual analysis of the air quality and acoustical issues associated with the
construction level impacts at the "Boulder" Project in Palm Springs, California. This report was
prepared by Charles Terry, Michael Alberson, Craig Lorenz and Douglas K. Filar.
FILAR ASSOCIATES
Douglas filar, Principal
Consultant in Acoustics, Investigator
Eilar Associates •539 Encinitas Boulevard,Suite 206,Encinitas, CA 92024 • 760-753-1865 •Fax 700-753-2597
City of Palm Springs,Attention: Gary Wayne March 29,2005
Evaluation of"Boulders"Project Air Quality and Noise Page 13
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1. Geotechnical Engineering Report dated February 19, 2003
2. 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) dated June 18, 2003
3. Proposed Grading and Crushing Construction Operations document dated January 15,
2004 for Michael Braun of Wessman Development by Gary A. Gibson of C.W. Poss, Inc.
4. Air Quality Analysis Report "Boulders" Project dated June 29, 2004 prepared for
Wessman Development Company.
5. Noise Impact Analysis Report "Boulders" Project dated July 7, 2004 prepared for
Wessman Development Company
6. City of Palm Springs, Department of Planning Services, Initial Study dated November 9,
2004
7. Response to Comments for the Boulders (this-titled as Crescendo) Mitigated Negative
Declaration document dated January 7, 2005 for City of Palm Springs.
8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Boulders Mitigated Negative
Declaration dated February 2, 2005 prepared for City of Palm Springs by DePalatis
Associates, Inc.
9. Memo, dated February 2, 2005 to Michael Braun of Wessman Development from Hans
Giroux &Associates.
10. Boulders Alternative Design (TTM 31095, Rev. 2-11-05) Environmental Analysis report
dated February 17, 2005.
11. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Boulders Mitigated Negative
Declaration dated February 17, 2005 prepared for City of Palm Springs by DePalatis.
12. Boulders Initial Study-Typographic Errors and Mina' Correction to Initial Study
dated February 17, 2005
13. "Rock Crushing—A Second Opinion" letter to Mayor Odell City of Palm Springs dated
March 3, 2005 written by John H. Goodrich on behalf of the Committee for the preservation
of Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon Neighborhoods. Associates, Inc.
14. Chapter 11.74, of the City of Palm Springs Noise Ordinance
15. Section 8.04.220, Construction Noise, City of Palm Springs Municipal Code
Filar Associates •539 Encinitas Boulevard,Suite 206,Encinitas,CA 92024 •760-753-1865- Fax 760-753-2597