HomeMy WebLinkAboutSound Study Along Tamarisk Row Drive Adjacent Union Pacific Railroad C23530CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Report on the Findings of a Sound Study Conducted along
Tamarisk Row Adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.
SUBMITTED BY: Martin Alvarez, Senior Management Analyst
DATE: June 23, 2005
CONTENTS: Medlin & Associates Sound Study
Aerial Map
Recommendation:
1. Authorize staff to contact the Federal Railroad Administration and seek a "Quiet
Zone" designation for this area, thus limiting the use of locomotive horns.
2. Authorize staff to forward the study to Union Pacific Railroad and seek
consideration and assistance to mitigate noise levels in this area through the
installation of a berm and wall.
Executive Summary:
On March 10, 2005, the City Council authorizebMedlin& Associates to conduct a sound
study to measure noise levels associated with the Union Pacific Railroad/Interstate 10
along Tamarisk Row Drive (see attached map). The study was performed on April 20
and 21, 2005, for a 24-hour period. Four locations were studied within the Regency
Palms Regency Estate subdivisions.
The study indicates that the daily average noise levels, with exception to the second
story balcony on the Palace Drive residence, were within the General Plan's
"Conditionally Acceptable" designation for residential uses.
When looking at the individual noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m., the one -minute average levels reached 80 decibels. These levels can be
attributed to the lower ambient noise levels and the train whistles.
Although the 24-hour average noise levels are deemed "Conditionally Acceptable"
within the City's Noise Element, staff believes that the residents are being impacted
during the evenings and early morning period. The study indicates that the spike in
noise levels during the evenings can be attributed to use of the train's whistle. To
address this issue, staff recommends that that the City peruse the "Quiet Zone"
designation through the Federal Railroad Administration and forward the noise study to
G \DevServicesWartin Alvarez\Word Files\2005 SMSoundstudy sr 6-23-05.doc
Staff Report - Medlin & Associates -Sound Study
Page 2 of 5
June 23, 2005
Union Pacific Railroad. The City will also ask for consideration in mitigating the noise
level in this area, with the installation of a berm or wall.
Background:
On March 10, 2005, the City Council authorized staff to contract Medlin & Associates to
conduct a sound study along a one -mile stretch on Tamarisk Row Drive between the
Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) and Regency Palms/Regency Estates. The study
provides decibel readings at four locations that are identified on the attached map. The
objectives of the study were to:
1. Perform a 24-hour noise measurement in the subject area.
2. Review and determine the applicability of local, state and federal noise criteria.
3. Recommend mitigation strategies if necessary.
Summary of Report
Attached is a copy of the sound study conducted on April 20 and 21, 2005. Twenty-four
hour noise measurements were conducted at four locations within the Regency Estates
and Regency Palms subdivisions. The locations of the sound readings took place
behind the subdivision's existing 6-foot block wall and are listed below.
Table 1: Study Locations
Location Position Approx.
Distance from
Railroad
Palace Drive Residence
Back Yard
350 Feet
Adjacent to Tamarisk Row
Palace Drive Residence
Balcony
350 Feet
Regency Estates Tennis
Inside Courts
250 Feet
Courts Adjacent to
Tamarisk Row
Regency Estates, Sheffield
Back Yard
.25 mile
Drive Residence
Daily -Average Noise Levels
24-hour noise readings were used to provide a daily -average noise level for each of the
four locations studied. The noise levels results are summarized below on Table 2.
G*10evServ1ceSWartln AlvarezlWord FJes�2005 SRISoundstudy sr 6-23-05 doc
Staff Report - Medlin & Associates -Sound Study
Page 3 of 5
June 23, 2005
Table 2: Twenty-four Hour Monitoring Results
Location
Palace Drive Back Yard
Palace Drive Balcony
Regency Estates Tennis Courts
Sheffield Residence
24-Hour Average
CNEL
68.1
73.0
65.5
61.2
Noise Compatibility with General Plan Noise Element
The City's General Plan was adopted in March of 2004. One of the required elements
is the Noise Element, which helps ensure compatibility of the community's land uses
with the existing and future noise environments.
The Noise Element contains four categories of noise compatibility for various land uses.
For residential uses such as Regency Estates/Palms and Palm Valley Country Club, the
24-hour average range of compatibility categories are listed below.
• Normally Acceptable (50 — 55 dBA)
• Conditionally Acceptable (55 — 70 dBA)
• Normally Unacceptable (70 — 75 dBA)
• Clearly Unacceptable (75 — above dBA)
The report provides an overview of all four locations and the compatibility of the
location.
Table 3: General Plan Compatibility Categories
24-hour
Average
Location
CNEL
Compatibility
Palace Drive Back Yard
68.1
Conditionally
Acceptable
Palace Drive Balcony
73.0
Normally Unacceptable
Regency Estates Tennis
65.5
Conditionally
Courts
Acceptable
Sheffield Residence
61.2
Conditionally
Acceptable
The report also identifies that if the horn noise is eliminated, the Palace Drive Balcony
could also be reduced to within the Conditionally Acceptable range. The residents have
indicated that the noise from the trains is not just due to wheel vibration noise, but the
GA)evServiceslMartin Alvareeftrd ReM2005 SRISoundstudy sr 6-23-05 doc
Staff Report - Medlin & Associates -Sound Study
Page 4 of 5
June 23, 2005
sounding of the horns. This issue is addressed further in the mitigation
recommendations.
Recommended Mitiqation Measures
The sound study provides three recommendations or options for mitigating noise levels
associated with the railroad and freeway. The three options are listed below and are
discussed in detail in the following section.
1. Controlling or eliminating the train whistles.
2. Installing a sound berm or wall adjacent to the railroad tracks; and
3. Lowering the elevation of the tracks themselves.
Controlling or eliminatinq the train whistles
The study indicates that most effective of the available options is to reduce or eliminate
train whistles in the vicinity of residential uses. According to discussion with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), horns must be blown within one -quarter mile of a grade
crossing, pedestrian crossing, railroad facility, construction/maintenance area, or
wherever a safety issue exists on the track. It is unclear why trains have to use their
horns in this area, since there is not grade crossing within miles of this area.
A new regulation announced last month by the FRA, will facilitate local communities in
the establishment of "Quiet Zones". These zones would establish areas where
locomotive horns "would not routinely be sounded" because there is not a significant
risk of loss of life or serious personal injury. This new rule will become effective on June
24, 2005.
Installing a sound berm and/or wall adiacent to the railroad tracks
This option can also provide an excellent barrier to controlling noise levels. In this area,
the only feasible location for a berm and/or wall barrier is on the Union Pacific Railroad
property. Berms typically require significant amounts of real estate. The City's right-of-
way along Tamarisk Row is insufficient to locate an adequate sized berm.
It was observed that an unpaved service road runs along the south side of the railroad,
between the tracks and Tamarisk Row Drive. A berm of sufficient height located in this
area would provide mitigation of both the railroad and freeway noise. If an 8-foot wall
were to be added to the berm this would also assist in reducing the noise levels. The
estimated cost to construct an 8-foot long wall on Tamarisk Row Drive, along the one -
mile stretch is $1,000,000 dollars. In order to determine what size berm and wall would
be required to mitigate the existing noise a separate study would have to be performed.
G:OevServicesWartin AlvarezlWord Files12005 SMSoundstudy sr 6-23-05 doc
Staff Report - Medlin & Associates -Sound Study
Page 5 of 5
June 23, 2005
Lowering the elevation of the tracks
The existing railroad tracks are 6 to 8 feet above the Tamarisk Row Drive grade. An
option to assist in mitigating sound from the railroad would be to lower the railroad
tracks to at or below the height as the adjacent street and residences. Depressing the
tracks and adding an 8-foot block wall would significantly improve noise mitigation in
this area.
Analvsis
The sound study provided decibel reading for 24-hour period. The readings were used
to extrapolate a daily average noise level. Based on the data, three of the four locations
surveyed were deemed "Conditionally Acceptable", based on the General Plans criteria
for residential use. When analyzing the noise levels occurring between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m., when most people sleep, the report indicates that the residents in this area
are being impacted. Fourteen events were recorded during this period and the average
noise level was 80 decibels. This level is deemed "Clearly Unacceptable" according to
the City's General Plan Noise Element.
Conclusion:
Based on the sound study results and the mitigation measures provided, staff
recommends the following:
1. Authorize staff to contact the Federal Railroad Administration and seek a
"Quiet Zone" designation of this area, thus limiting the use of locomotive
horns in this area.
2. Authorize staff to forward the study to Union Pacific Railroad and seek
consideration and assistance to mitigate noise in this area with the use a
berm and wall on the Union Pacific property.
Submitted By:
K rtin Alvarez
Senior Management Analyst
Approval:
7V
Carlos Ortega
City Manager
Departm t Head:
Homer Cro
ACM for Develiment Services
PvuulGibson
Finance Director
G OevServicesWartin AlvarezlWord Files12005 SMSoundstudy sr 6-23-05.doc
_ % '• R�£� 'Nh t�� �� W 3.i� «�� `ice.
.R l'? rim - �O .s +4i•..,}
y4 • ��v+I :� �lr. art �! �1 1
of
r ; ,
f"? r 'y?
'�. w rb.•� � � .. �ii'r';!�'.•',."� a IL {% 2 f. .. L ��f^'�
66 ' � M .� �►. � !�' E � .1 'i � X �%�,?,r.� ac!RI !f :~i �i *; !T � y � I i-; f Y � � � _. F
1 �� � • — ` f 1.ee rkf )t J Yam?
(� 14 . 1 L��..� { -. �.. ��, t •. S `,��i�l'.. M.-4w 1. ! i. y.. : �v .4
Medlin &
Associates, inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Noise Study for Tamarisk Row
City of Palm Desert California
17 May 2005
Kathy Medlin
Principal Consultant
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
760-930-6515 phone
PO Box 130941 Carlsbad CA 92013-0941
mail@medlin-acoustics.com
www.medlin-scoustics.com
Contents
SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... I
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... ..»......................................................................... I
NOISEMEASUREMENTS..................................................................................................................... 3
OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................................
3
CORRELATIONANALYSIS....................................................................................................................
7
DETAILED NIGHTTIME ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................
10
DAILY -AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS.......................................................................................................
14
DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................................15
SLEEPDISTURBANCE.........................................................................................................................
15
NOISECOMPATIBILITY ......................................................................................................................
15
REGULATORYOVERVIEW..................................................................................................................
16
TRAIN NOISE & REGULATIONS..........................................................................................................
17
MITIGATIONOPTIONS......................................................................................................................19
GENERAL............................................................................................................................................19
WHISTLECONTROL............................................................................................................................
19
BERM...................................................................................................................................................
20
WALL..................................................................................................................................................
21
TRACKELEVATION............................................................................................................................
21
APPENDIX 1: NOISE REGULATIONS & PROCEDURES.............................................................
22
LOCALNOISE STANDARDS................................................................................................................
22
County of Riverside General Plan (Adopted 7 Oct 2003).................................................................
22
City of Palm Desert General Plan/ Noise Element (Adopted 15 Mar 2004)......................................
22
City of Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance 9.24.030 (dated Aug 1997).......................................
24
STATENOISE STANDARDS.................................................................................................................
24
California Health and Safety Code Sections 46000 - 46080 The California Noise Control Act of
1973................................................................................................................................................
24
FEDERALNOISE STANDARDS............................................................................................................
25
Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................................................
25
Federal Highway Administration..................................................................................................... 25
Federal Railroad A&ninistravowTederal Transit A&Wnistration....................................................
27
APPENDIX 2: FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE....................................................................................31
Medlin & Associates, Inc. Contents City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Summary
Upon receiving community noise disturbance complaints from the nearby I-10 and Union
Pacific rail corridor, The City of Palm Desert commissioned Medlin & Associates, Inc. to
perform an acoustical study for the adjacent neighborhood, which comprises Regency
and Palm Valley Country Club neighborhoods. This report presents the findings of the
noise study. Any questions may be addressed to Kathy Medlin at (760) 930-6515 or by
email to mail( rnedlin-acoustics.com.
Background & Project Description
Residents of the Regency and Palm Valley Country Club neighborhoods have made
complaints to the City of Palm Desert regarding excessive noise intrusion into their
neighborhood from the I-10 and Union Pacific rail alignment. The community alleges in
their letter to the City dated 12 April 2004 that the excessive noise has affected their
health and property values. See Attachment (1). Although the nature of the noise
complaints is not specific in the residents' letter to the City, the City has reported that the
complaints encompass a range of disturbances, from nighttime awakenings due to train
passbys and intrusive horn noise disturbances to highway traffic noise and vibration
complaints. The three objectives of the noise study were to:
1. perform 24-hour noise measurements in the area
2. review and determine the applicability of local, state and federal noise criteria
3. recommend notional mitigation strategies
Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the study area. It comprises the roughly trapezoidal area
bounded by Tamarisk Row Drive, Frank Sinatra Drive, El Dorado Drive, and Country
Club Drive. Both the rail line and I-10 lie adjacent to the diagonally -running portion of
Tamarisk Row Drive. The Regency Estates neighborhood populates the eastern quarter
of the area, with the Palm Valley residences and golf course forming the balance. The
area is approximately one mile wide and one mile long, with the portion of Tamarisk
Row Drive parallel to the rail line extending about three quarters of a mile. Regency
Estates comprises one and two story single-family residences, while Palm Valley is
mostly single -story clusters of townhouses intertwining the golf course.
A block wall six to nine feet high runs along Tamarisk Row Drive around the perimeter
of the project. On the north side of Tamarisk Row is a row of trees and shrubbery
separating this road from the rail and freeway corridors, with an unpaved service road
running between this row and the rail line. The railroad tracks are elevated above
Tamarisk Row Drive by approximately 6-10 feet. The freeway (I-10) lies beyond the rail
line, furthest from the study area.
Tamarisk Row Drive is a four lane city arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Rush
hour traffic can be significant on this road. The City reports that the most recent traffic
count on Tamarisk Row was taken in December 2003 and indicated a daily volume of
6,484 vehicles per day. Also, the City's General Plan Traffic Study indicates that the
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 1 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
_, b v*. •�^ ar � .. � � yam`\
;;;rR .} ,r i red'".. r.' ,� ., .'+,�•:
'�.,,��`t It �}f �c-: .•�:yt
•` �`j1 �Ci?� •�fK.�.. � .gam. � ., i , , ..�`- �-
�. "•,
41
tw 4-1
m
y 1. �•Ibrr !s .:•T� !� ,� o
� :riy . ry1� 1.
t ~fir 4-';M
i .may, t' �3' a.�?�. � `..•`! 1
16
_ "!b 11 S cis flk 10.
rC lMi � IA ; , �% f Al f14�l i _'N �t� n lS 1 Y ., >r r � • _ 3
��i M n - ..._ Tt .-,'� ^1 ��, - '.t T`l .'i; •� 11���( it
r'i'.. r . � � � u .' (t.!�j"t'• tit ,; r � *_ ���.
M
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Noise Measurements
Overview
Twenty-four hour noise measurements were conducted 20/21 April at the locations listed
in Table 1 and noted with red stars on Figure 1.1 Four locations were chosen in order to
obtain a representative distribution of data.
Table 1: Twenty-four hour monitoring locations
Location
Position
Palace Drive residence back yard
Palace Drive residence second story balcony
Regency tennis courts inside courts
Sheffield Drive residence back yard
* Distances to rail line provided by City of Palm Desert
Approximate
distance to rail line*
250 feet
250 feet
350 feet
.25 mile
Two measurements were conducted at a residence on Palace Drive. This residence backs
up to Tamarisk Row Drive and lies approximately 250 feet from the rail line. One meter
was located on a second -floor balcony, as shown in Figure 2, with a direct acoustical
view of Tamarisk Row Drive and the rail line beyond. (A line of trees obscures the view
to the rail and freeway, but these will have little effect on noise measurements).
Figure 2: Palace Drive balcony (rail line and freeway beyond trees)
Figure 3 is a graph of noise levels recorded at this location. Values shown are one -minute
averages (Leq) stated in A -weighted decibels (dBA).Z The curve in this graph follows a
typical daily traffic -noise pattern for an arterial road, with increased levels during
t Measurements conducted with Quest Q-300 Type-2 noise dosimeters, fitted with windscreens and
calibration checked before and after measurements; weather at 12:25 p.m. 20 April was 77 degrees, 32%
relative humidity, and winds less than 2 mph; weather at 8:30 a.m. 21 April was 73 degrees, 31 % humidity,
and winds less than 4 mph.
z A -weighted decibels: see Appendix 2 for explanation
Medlin & Associates, Inc. J City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
follows a typical daily traffic -noise pattern for an arterial road, with increased levels
during morning and afternoon rush hours and a pronounced dip after midnight. The
curve is somewhat flattened, however, by the influence of the nearby freeway which will
tend to have more constant traffic volumes than an arterial road. Note that noise levels
never fall below 55 dBA, which can almost certainly be attributed to freeway traffic.
Large regular spikes are due mostly to train traffic and are discussed further below.
90
y�,..,,,.:`,%::lGan-..Fij'+a'.'�: are�s'��'». <ra..•, �'k �i.`v::J..,.u�:;:«,e-. ^'..G;iA`: t.c : -�,. ...«i-. ,. .�'`f'". ....,-. ..-. .. .,. *..i.,: ,� ..:�a
85
;;;80
M,,.ti:
75
7055
65
60
`. �,; T"'' �i*'k.c ;q' `'� '��."+iS" -`_:tiyI' �t :.t��. .tj4'st,.`%';C.,'.• E.'�'w,:i_:i'•
PIT
S"'-y 6 n • I4y }_
50 wt
i R R R i R a 1 9 Ra a a a a Q a a a a a a
N fV CM 4 CD 1+ a0 CA a
C"J OJ N M f N m t` CO CA O N
Time
Figure 3: 24-hour measurement on Palace Drive balcony (1-minute Leq, dBA)
Another measurement was conducted in the back yard of this residence, behind the sound
wall shown in Figure 4. This sound wall blocks a substantial amount of traffic noise
emanating from Tamarisk Row Drive. It is less effective against train and freeway noise,
however, as is evident by the measurements shown in Figure 5. This graph indicates that
while much of the daytime noise due to Tamarisk Row Drive is reduced, late night noise
from the freeway remains about the same as that measured on the balcony. Large spikes
due to train noise are also reduced somewhat, but remain at relatively high levels
nevertheless.
Figure 4: Palace Drive back yard (sound wall faces Tamarisk Row Dr.)
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 4 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
O O
n
O O O
o O N N
@
N
N N NCfO
fV M (C I� CO N .- N
M V 6 W N.
W
OI O ^ N
Time
Figure 5: 24-hour measurement in Palace Drive back yard (1-minute Leq, dBA)
The tennis courts at the corner of Regency Way and Tamarisk Row drive were the
location of the third measurement (Figure 6). These lie approximately 350 feet from the
rail line, and are separated by a sound wall from both adjacent streets. Figure 7 shows the
recorded noise levels at this location. It is reminiscent of the Palace Drive back yard,
with the sound wall blocking much noise from local traffic but having little effect on the
freeway and other distant noise sources. Similar to the above graphs, large regular spikes
are mostly attributable to train noise. Those spikes around 8 a.m. are due to lawn
maintenance, however, and should be disregarded.
Figure 6: Tennis court at corner of Regency and Tamarisk Row; note sound wall in back
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 5 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
.Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
90
...., .. , -._,.
85
F
<..
80
t 4 r 4kfv .\•'Ff �' :.' Lar 4 �s fy`r C} �{�: .Azx Y
1t r r S' 7
75
70
{
W
65
N*
80
55
50
Time
Figure 7: 24-hour measurement at tennis court (1-minute Leq, dBA)
The fourth measurement location was in the back yard of a residence on Sheffield Court,
well back into the Regency Estates residences. This location was approximately a
quarter of a mile from the rail line, and substantially shielded from road traffic. Figure 8
shows the recorded noise levels. Other than an increase during the morning rush hour,
this graph shows no common pattern, and therefore likely represents mostly local, non -
traffic noise sources. Most of the regular spikes can still be attributed to train traffic,
however, particularly those occurring late at night. Their levels are lower than in other
measurement locations due to the greater distance from the rail line. One anomaly
regarding this graph is the fairly consistent late -night noise level of greater than 50 dBA.
As this level is greater than even mid -afternoon levels at this location, it must be assumed
to result from a nearby steady source such as a pool pump. While it has no effect on the
study of train -noise impact at this location, it does artificially inflate the computed CNEL
discussed below.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 6 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
90
85
80
75
70
65 —
60 -,
554
a
50
.- tV C7 It7 m 1� CO C! O T N T N CM V to m h CO Q O T N
T T T T T T
Time
Figure 8: 24-hour measurement in Sheffield Drive back yard (1-minute Leq, dBA)
Correlation Analysis
The 24-hour noise monitors ran unattended. As such, it is not possible to positively
identify the source of each spike in the graphs shown above. In order to separate those
spikes resulting from passing trains and those due to unrelated nearby activities, however,
a correlation analysis was performed. This analysis consisted of identifying, at each
measurement location, those data points which were substantially higher than the average
noise level. This was done by considering both the level of the one -minute average data
point and the peak level that occurred during that one -minute measurement. If both the
one -minute average and the peak within that minute were substantially higher than the
average levels for that location, an "event" was said to occur. The times of these events
were then compared to the occurrence of events at other locations. Where multiple
locations registered an event at the same time, these were then said to be correlated.
Figure 9 through Figure 12 are the same graphs shown above, but displaying the events
recorded at the four monitoring locations. Events are shown as green dots lying above
the continuous noise record, and represent maximum noise levels recorded using a "fast"
meter response (per ANSI S-1.4). Green dots bordered by a red square represent
correlated events, and are most likely due to passing trains.
As can be seen, most events do correlate with those occurring at other locations,
particularly during late -night hours. Uncorrelated events are mostly clustered around
specific points in time, likely representing some activity at that location such as lawn
maintenance. Correlation of events does not necessarily identify train noise, but rather
asserts that a noise occurred which could be heard at multiple locations. Such noises
may result from aircraft, sirens, and possibly very loud trucks (either local or on the
freeway). And in rare cases, correlated events may only be circumstantial. Considering
the high noise level of these events, on -site observations, and the nature of resident
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 7 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
complaints, it is assumed that most correlated events are due to train activity (including
horns).
90 a3yRl:n�:i�i <, •� . s.:'$r,�,•.sy`oAytja� ,i,frC:i4n,>`l�`" ir:', t; •, �M�: l\ -.!. v'h`�- -
;a12�'vekyj±?f�ia�� 9
�r�+•;� .' � " �
"�s�� * �.� P (
85
�^4.i lr .�y_
ry80
70
9
65
lc
55
�.
s+3.�.L�;.,d�'�tif!,n.• •c�•.k%i;ii.. `-..A. �::J[`iL u�' ��t.�:�A'3�.; `. ....-�.
'�}. t. "' ..
�/�
50
... ..ti ,:��r
.A��:. ..1'•iw ..
lY \\ � lY lY � � � lY � \Y � �
� •Y � �
� {Y � � 1.
Time
Figure 9: Event records on Palace Drive balcony
90
F^"�,'y,"2.•c�,;d .,K:; �� :,f .wrr?a: ....� `tS i•rq'.+> .y_. •�,.0 ;:A �:'-�''" i .
85
8()tY `r 'f 2 �s r gyro Cr,t: !- s t !' xe�• +� i
eo7.,�b
��,,�5,��5.
.i� i-'��?�.�ia;..k..�. S.: F,ir»�'-a '»F•�.'�`�S. 59'� �' "'x.. .�,.` �;, _ -: ��` Y;=
75
70 �.-
65•t,.
60
55
50 -
ma a a a NOO000'7'ra N
CV — fV C7 '* '0WLn t- CO CA O nj ni CM V N m r� 00 0 O 4- N
lime
Figure 10: Event records in Palace Drive back yard
This assumption is supported by the average level of the correlated events when
considered in respect to their measurement location. The Palace Drive balcony (Figure
9) experiences the highest event noise levels, most of which are in the 80-85 dBA range.
Some protection is afforded to the Palace Drive back yard (Figure 10) by the adjacent
sound wall. Nighttime event noise levels here are clustered around 75 dBA. Similar
results occur on the tennis court (Figure 11) which is also protected by a sound wall.
Event levels here are mostly in the range of 65-75 dBA. The distant Sheffield back yard
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 8 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
d
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
experiences the lowest noise level of correlated events, clustered mostly in the range of
60-65 dBA.
90
:�:
85
•�.s`{:�y.`�-
/�G•�i"��.r�tryJ�
yya'.y."w.-�
nL.ri3la�Mier
a�1�N,Ls�M�r.:
i;�'tiw.iK��'e1w:�.KvrLri'
�r
j..,.:>1.�:
80>.
'.d
-.�
'
4s* dTt�
'�'-,.�
a
kt
-•
k1
Y
"i.
t� $
N+
Ary
~-
k
!t
r
C -
75
.�.�y.1t�yt+f,'W.61
yyy
Jar+rK
e
70
`'q:.
,?+�,'.
�
�
_ Li •
<.$
�tir�
!
'.�..:
•+ •.may
�"' •,,
65
so
55 -
50
O
O
O
�
�
O
O
O
O
�
•-
N
M
V
1A
m
^
a0
O
O
�
�
N
N
N
M
a
N
W
I'-
CO
A
C
fV
,r
<V
C7
'W
Uf
CO
P�
00
Q
O
Time
Figure 11: Event records on tennis court
go
h •'y� "�� ,..:k�:.2r�_..d:^S
85—+s,'�.� ,r, I." y .. JI. ;t:: ;: '.»i,r i,..',:�ry:-� .;r.;^T,,•+ „
�,+� '�:.. s:}-.wx,F Y� .`S=RY.,".;:.{�':ri'.si.r�: 5��,+:F'.+�:::.,:.�,k'�4y:;ryiT; "�.iys'�;:_'�: ::.• - _ `" 'u'= .
s`•' •�.�^`'`�.�m'laf` ' d(S ask: �•�'.q�i ., -,�, A;�r' ...q „i,�,,. ._.y_�?.v :.�'-.:S,i i �� ��•' , .�
24
75 .Q� Y f' it `ter ��`��'�'...n�� -✓+.:..la.:....
65
60
55
50
fV 0 V 47 CO h 00 CA O nj .- lV M �f aff m h a0 to C fV
Time
Figure 12: Event records in Sheffield Drive back yard
Fluctuation in event noise levels can be attributed to various causes. Among these
include the location of the train and direction of travel, the level at which the train
whistled, and changing atmospheric conditions. Regardless of their absolute levels, all of
the correlated events represent noise levels substantially higher than the average level at
that location, in some cases more than twenty decibels higher.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 9 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Detailed Nighttime Analysis
Because late -night hours are subject to less extraneous noise -producing activities, and
because these are the hours during which quiet is most desirable, detailed consideration
was given to noise events occurring after 10 p.m. The graphs that follow show events
recorded throughout the night of 20/21 April. Solid curves represent one -minute average
values (Leq), while square dots above these curves show the peak (maximum on "fast"
meter) noise levels recorded during each event at the four measurement locations.3
The first such event occurred around 10:07 p.m., as shown in Figure 13. Its greatest
impact was recorded at Sheffield, resulting in a one -minute average noise increase of
about ten decibels above ambient. Lesser impact was recorded at the tennis courts, and
only a five decibel increase over ambient was recorded on the Palace balcony.4 Peak
levels clustered around 75 dBA. That the impacts occurred this way may be due to the
train being at a great distance to the east when it whistled, or possibly the source was
other than a train.
O
a
1�
I
W
85
ao
75
70
eb
60
SS
60
c���e����o��rS�cQ�cl�cl'�C9�Q��Q�r�QQ��Q� �Q�ryQ� �Q� AQ�hQ�0Q�1Q�0Q,�Q+�Q y�Q��DQ�Qk �Q+ryhQ�
. � 16• 4• ,1o• IZ ,IO• ,Ao ,�6 ,�o ^� ,�o �o ,�O ,�cS �� �cS ^� ,�c5 ^� ^� ^( ^� s� ,�O �� �� ,�c5 ,��
Time
Figure 13: Event occurring at 10:07 p.m.
Less than an hour later, however, the event shown in Figure 14 occurred. This time, an
impact of 15 decibels above ambient was recorded on the Palace balcony, reaching a
maximum one -minute average of 78 dBA and a peak level of 85 dBA. A similar impact
occurred at the tennis courts, with levels reaching a one -minute average 72 dBA and a
peak of 80 dBA.
Fourteen such events occurred between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., as seen in Figure 15 through
Figure 22, with an average rate of approximately one event every forty minutes. One -
minute average levels reached 80 dBA on the Palace balcony, exceeding ambient by
twenty decibels or more in many cases, while peak levels topped at 87 dBA. The
duration of events ranged between approximately one and two minutes each.
3 The adjective "peak" will be used for clarity here, though it does not conform to the strict definition
° As stated earlier, late -night ambient noise here is probably freeway driven
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 10 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
t Peak noise levels for all locations ranged between five and ten decibels higher than the
one -minute averages. Based on consistent measured levels and residents' descriptions,
these peak values are almost certainly attributable to train horns. Peak levels on the
Palace balcony, for instance, tend to remain near 85 dBA. Fluctuations in the one -minute
average levels may therefore be largely due to the duration for which the train whistled,
as well as other factors.
t
a
M
�y
O
90
W
W
73
70
65
Time
Figure 14: Event occurring at 10:53 p.m.
90
as
1 90
r
O 7s
'e
70
a
$� 65
d 80
SS
50
t� W
OP^\P�OP^OP�P ,P�P �P�P Pry�P P�P�P�,�P�It, �P
Time
Figure 15: Event occurring at 12:16 a.m.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. I I City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
W
85
60
f? 75
70
85
O 60
55
so
I
Y1bk A
.IV. 411. Nq1 NIV N% 1% NIP4O N111 0f N% N%_A 4% # .Jd' . . N. P N4ZP.
Time
Figure 16: Events occurring at 12:52 am. and 1:08 a.m.
an
eo
75
70
06
56
50
1
V.41 -0. 0- �4 1tv 4 -4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 14k -4
� V� V� Y_ V, r r IV. tz It, IV. IV le le r r V V V r V V Time
V
;� e 4 e + e 4 e 4 e + e 4 Vz 4 4 4 + 4 .41
11 xp xP Al p% .,db
Figure 17: Event occurring at 1:37 am.
lip 10 IAP 11�1 "I>- 14,11
90
A;
86
ao
j
o'�
75
70-
.2
go
55
50
Time
Figure IS: Event occurring at 2:15 a.m.
� ... � . . . I ill
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
90
85
80
O
O
73
70-
05-
00
55
Sol
4 + # #& # # '41 # # # 44# # # # # # # # # 4 4 4 44
PeepV"'V r"rVVrPAVPepteV'NV VV'ot�br�J'At'V&weOreV�V
'b• t'4b"O'0""bj'e'e'y ','b'�'i -''4N'o
Time
Figure 19: Events occurring at 2:58 am. and 3:18 am.
90
85
so
75
O
70
05
w
55
50
Op
14V AV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4- 4 4 4 4 4 4- 4 4 4 4 4 4
w w IV IV le V IV w IV w w V le le w Vz w w w V, Vz w r V w r w lb 'w
•
•
e 0 1h^ 1* e e e 0 14 e e IbIp tA' td' e t'cj" hp htA 4" b^' t•'b
Time
Figure 20: Events occurring at 4:55 a.m. and 5:05 a.m.
so
75
05
55
50
4p 4p 4p 40 11+ 10" 114 41P 4p 111-1p 1111+ t� ;!p 11* 111P yRN 110 1? ill, 1-610 lop hay
4h^
1 Time
Figure 21: Event occurring at 5:38 a.m.
i
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
90
55
.y .:ly,�r-�. -.4:.:.'"i. - ',,,1 `i, •:r�+",�;,tL.<.�;"? ' ' .:i:: ? Y�3_: r�:).i.(a �a:r� Sze
Hsu' T,' )%��� .S l'.ly�gw'.1`,•�n..`.''ik J�. Nr,.^Nyi.; F�.'C�.�': ,, fir
�M(R, .q.2o
�:.r��L^��i, ;."�i''•?'R•4a_ rr�r�k�,:'sl:.,:`'4:,-.MY.w3rJ..rnt::'tw.N`i::w.r:...:.:M-'..l•KK.1i,..: ;.:, '.hi+�'
ao
>".tif.`"a:�7';.a „a .'•" 'p`'{''S Via4-S.t. .
vf6a y2!G'r-;�•,.
f,t .S y
70
dd:>�j;•-;:" {; '•, :�! ..�,t�g�a:�..;r> '!J. ,�.�+;:i" :r4-_'::E: '•-v., 1.,.., :� "�� �. ,. •,�,.•
65
99 .••i,. .v_,,,,,r �, ,a!i ,�,riy c.C' w 2n;A+ .,'(so
-ytsr. „`'0., c •��i' :,
• ._wl( / +{ ��1c` / _ '"i.' err i".. -.::•,•� .>i
I,s,,; 's:..f : ...• - ...�Y•.�:`�„i. .. i.+tr�•:r� _,;;zl'�:1.�;' �. - - ...
50
e e a ea'` Asti 0P e 1 e°R+ t" e e e e e e e e e t.4 e e ,�cp ,gip'` -I&. ,s, .1111.1, 1& 16
Time
Figure 22: Events occurring at 6:41 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Daily -Average Noise Levels
Measured noise levels above were combined into daily -average noise levels for each
location. Results shown in Table 2 are reported in both CNEL and Ldn.5 Levels were
computed using all measured data, and again with large spikes in the measurements
("events") removed. The difference ranged between approximately two and three
decibels, depending upon the location. The smallest difference occurred on the Palace
balcony, most likely because its constant exposure to freeway and Tamarisk Row traffic
keeps the average noise level elevated. The greatest difference was in the Palace back
yard which, for similar reasons, can likely be attributed to the sound wall.
Table 2: Twenty-four hour monitoring results
Unadjusted
Events (spikes)
removed
Location
CNEL
Ldn
CNEL
Ldn
Palace Drive back yard
68.1
67.8
66.0
65.7
Palace Drive balcony
73.0
72.7
69.9
69.4
Regency tennis courts
65.5
65.2
62.8
62.4
Sheffield Drive residence
61.2
61.0
58.6
58.4
S Ldn does not apply a penalty between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.; see Appendix 2 for further explanation
.. .. ,. l A — . 11
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Discussion
Sleep Disturbance
Much research has been performed into the impact of noise on sleep. It is affected by
many factors, both physical and psychological, and to broach a detailed discussion on this
topic is beyond the scope of this study. It is safe to say, however, that the train noise
levels measured along Tamarisk Row Drive are high enough to result in a certain
percentage of awakenings. Assessing the degree to which train noise affects residents
further away would require additional study.
Noise Compatibility
The noise element of the City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan (adopted
15 March 2004) considers daily average noise levels between CNEL-55 and CNEL-70 to
be "conditionally acceptable" with single-family residential use. It defines conditionally
acceptable as follows:
"New construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement
is made and needed noise insulation features included in the
design."
Daily average levels above CNEL-70 are deemed "normally unacceptable", which is
defined as:
"New construction discouraged. If new construction does
proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements
must be made and needed noise insulation features included
in the design."
Levels above CNEL-75 are "clearly unacceptable", meaning that new construction or
development "should generally not be undertaken." These definitions are consistent with
those used in the County of Riverside General Plan (adopted 7 October 2003) and the old
California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines.
Based on these definitions and the results in Table 2, only the Palace Drive balcony
currently falls into the category of "normally unacceptable". The Palace Drive back yard
and the tennis courts lie on the high side of "conditionally acceptable", while Sheffield
Drive is well within the "conditionally acceptable" range. If train horn noise is removed
from the measurements, the Palace Drive balcony also falls within "conditionally
acceptable", reflecting the impact of freeway and Tamarisk Row Drive noise on this and
similar locations.
Therefore, though periodic train noise may be objectionable to residents, the overall
noise environment is considered within the acceptable range for residential use
throughout most of the project. This statement is qualified with the acknowledgement
that noise measurements were conducted with exterior mitigation (sound walls) already
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 15 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
in place. In the absence of these walls, it is likely that the region of "normally
unacceptable" would extend further into the residential area.
This agrees with the results of a noise study performed in 1993 by Walker, Celano &
Associates for Regency Homes. Their 24 Feb 1993 letter report for lots 54 through 64 of
tract 25445 indicated combined daily average noise levels in Ldn ranging from 67.9 to
71.5. Stated in terms of CNEL these values would be higher yet, with the result that
most, if not all, of these lots would fall within the range of "normally unacceptable". The
study results were based on the assumption of a nine -foot high perimeter wall in place.
Consequently, the report recommended that specific architectural measures be
incorporated as mitigation against noise.
Planning and approval for this project were done under the jurisdiction of Riverside
County, not the City of Palm Desert.6 The project was annexed to the city in 1992.
Compatible noise levels, if any, under the old county general plan were not available for
this report, though there is little reason to believe they differ from the city's current
standards. Noise studies for other tracts within this project were also unavailable for this
report.
Regulatory Overview
Noise law is generally complex, and is found at every level from local ordinances up to
Federal regulations. Excerpts from relevant laws are provided in Appendix 1. While
there is no intent to provide a legal analysis here, the following relationships are
generally found to hold true.
Creation of disturbing noises by individuals and commercial activities is normally
regulated by local noise ordinances. Their nature varies by locality, and ranges from
vaguely worded cautions against disturbance to detailed property -line limits, specified by
zoning and time -of -day. They usually allow for penalties (civil and/or criminal) for
violations.
Local general plans are required by California law to contain a "noise element". Similar
to noise ordinances, these are sometimes merely statements of a city's goals regarding
noise, while others lay out comprehensive policies regarding compatibility of various
land -uses with given noise environments. Unlike ordinances, the noise elements serve
mainly as guidance to local planners in decisions regarding project approvals. For
example, a developer's application to build residences next to a freeway may be
disapproved because noise levels exceed what the general plan determines as
"compatible" with residential development.
Federal and state transportation projects generally preempt local noise ordinances when
Federal funding is involved. Their impact on the noise environment is determined in
regard to agency thresholds, without consideration of local law. These thresholds are not
absolute limits, but rather are triggers to determine whether noise abatement should be
6 According to City of Palm Desert letter of 29 Apr 2004
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 16 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
considered. For highways, the determination to install noise abatement (sound walls or
earth berms) is based upon a "reasonable/feasible" analysis which considers, among other
things, the cost of abatement and the number of receivers which will benefit. In many
cases, standard procedures require no abatement at all. If abatement is required, it is
usually either a sound wall or earth berm. Only in very rare cases will standard
procedures allow for architectural treatment of affected receivers. Similar procedures are
used in determining abatement of rail noise. It is interesting to note that based only on
existing noise levels, Table 6 in Appendix 1 would indicate that either an "impact" or a
"severe impact" already exists along Tamarisk Row Drive.
Federal and state laws also constrain the permissible noise emissions from individual
vehicles designed for highway or rail use. These have only an indirect effect on noise
levels near a highway or rail line, however, as many other factors also contribute such as
traffic volume, traffic mix, vehicle speed, pavement type, topography, and weather
conditions.
The California Building Code (Title 24) requires that interior noise levels in multi -family
dwellings such as apartments and condominiums be maintained at or below CNEL-45.7
"Application consistent with local land -use standards,
residential structures located in noise critical areas, such
as proximity to highways, county roads, city streets,
railroads, rapid transit lines, airports or industrial areas
shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior
noises beyond prescribed levels. Proper design shall
include, but shall not be limited to, orientation of the
residential structure, setbacks, shielding and sound
insulation of the building itself."
"Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources
shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room..."
Any multi -family dwellings within the project would be required to meet this limit.
Train Noise & Regulations
Train noise, particularly from horns, appears to be the source of most concern along
Tamarisk Row. Discussion with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) indicates
that horns must be blown within one -quarter of a mile of a grade crossing, pedestrian
crossing, railroad facility, construction/maintenance area, or wherever a safety issue
exists on the track.g
It is unclear, though, why trains whistle in the vicinity of Tamarisk Row. Review of the
FRA GIS web site reveals that the closest crossing east of the project is Grade Crossing
Number 760706U just east of Washington Street, more than a mile away (Figure 23).9
The closest grade crossing to the west (number 912044U) lies at Portola Avenue, two and
Alternately Ldn, depending upon local standards
8 Per John Leeds, FRA Director of Safety Analysis in Washington DC; john.leeds@fra.dot.gov.
9 www.fra.dot.gov
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 17 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
one-half miles away (Figure 24). There is a switch in the track just west of the project
(Figure 25), though it is unknown whether this requires the train to whistle.
v,"
44
COW W CLLO OR COVti
Figure 23: Grade crossing east of Project by Wasbington St. (#760706U)
Figure 24: Grade Crossing west of project by Portola Ave. (#912044U)
Figure 25: Track split west of project
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 18 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Mitigation Options
General
There does not always exist in noise control an optimal solution which minimizes noise
impacts from all sources and to all receivers. Available options are further limited when
justifying cost against benefits. The present situation is no exception, particularly
considering that three sources (freeway, rail, and Tamarisk Row Drive) are involved,
with the freeway and rail line elevated with respect to the project. The benefits to each
receiver will vary depending upon its location, as the three sources lie at different relative
distances to the various receivers.
The existing community sound wall is ineffective in providing adequate relief from even
Tamarisk Row Drive traffic noise. It provides no significant mitigation against noise
emanating from either the railroad or the freeway. Raising this wall would require
structural assessments, possibly requiring its removal in order to provide the structural
footing necessary to sustain a higher wall. This option, however would provide relief
only to those yards immediately adjacent to the wall. It would provide little benefit to
residences further away, and may not provide sufficient relief to second -story rooms
along Tamarisk Row Drive.
Options such as re -paving Tamarisk Row Drive with a quieter rubberized asphalt
pavement would be of marginal benefit, as the predominant noises are from the rail
corridor and freeway. Installation of a sound wall on the freeway would provide no
mitigation against train noise, and would not be funded unless expansion of the freeway
is planned or the City provides sufficient funds. Architectural modifications to
residences would entail substantial costs while providing no benefit to exterior
recreational areas.
Available options which offer significant relief from the primary noise sources include
the following:
• controlling or eliminating the train whistle
• installing a sound berm or wall adjacent to the railroad tracks
• lowering the elevation of the tracks themselves.
Whistle Control
Perhaps the most effective of the available mitigation options is to reduce or eliminate
train whistles in the vicinity of Tamarisk Row. As stated earlier, there is apparently no
requirement for trains to whistle here, as there is no grade crossing or other apparent
safety requirement.
A new regulation announced last month by the Federal Railroad Administration will
facilitate local communities in the establishment of "quiet zones". These are basically
areas within which locomotive horns "would not be routinely sounded" because there is
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 19 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
not a significant risk of loss of life or serious personal injury, use of a horn is impractical,
or safety measures have been emplaced which fully compensate for the absence of the
warning provided by the locomotive horn. A quiet zone is not the same as a whistle ban,
and it was not determined for this report whether whistle bans are still permitted. The
"final rule" issued by the FRA was published in the 27 April 2005 edition of the Federal
Register (pages 21844-21920), and will become effective on 24 June (see press release in
Appendix 1).
Whether such a quiet zone is even applicable to Tamarisk Row is questionable, as there
is no grade crossing in the vicinity. Nevertheless, the City of Palm Desert should take up
this matter with the Federal Railroad Administration, along with an investigation into the
possibility of a whistle -ban if these are still permitted.10
It may be prudent to also request the FRA to investigate the level of routine track
maintenance to minimize wheel squeal, and what further measures can be performed to
reduce such ancillary noises.
Berm
Depending upon geographic considerations, earthen berms can be excellent barriers
against transportation noise. They are generally superior to sound walls as they introduce
a longer path length for noise to travel, and usually offer a degree of sound absorption
lacking in masonry walls. For structural reasons they are often taller than sound walls,
which require deep footings in order to obtain any substantial height. Their drawback is
that berms usually require a large footprint.
It was observed that an unpaved service road runs along the south side of the railroad,
between the tracks and Tamarisk Row Drive as shown in Figure 26 (Tamarisk Row Drive
is beyond the line of trees). A berm of sufficient height located here would provide
mitigation against rail and freeway noise, without loss of the service road which
potentially could relocate to the top of the berm.
Whether there is sufficient real estate to accommodate a berm of adequate height must be
determined. This is of particular concern because the tracks lie above the existing
service road, requiring additional berm height in order to adequately mitigate train noise.
A berm must block the line of sight between the train horn and nearby residences in order
to provide any significant mitigation against train noise. The top of the berm would
preferably lie several feet above the horn's elevation. An alternate measure would be to
lower the railroad tracks to a point where they are either level with, or depressed below
the service road grade, minimizing the required height of the berm.
Determination of the potential noise -control benefit of a berm requires a detailed study
which should be performed prior to pursuing this option.
10 Contact Al Settje at FRA Region 7 (Sacramento); phone (916) 498-6547
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 20 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Figure 26: Potential berm location; service road beside railroad tracks
Wall
In lieu of a berm, a sound wall could be installed adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Performance would be inferior to an earth berm, but with a gained advantage of requiring
minimal footprint for installation. Height requirements similar to those for a berm apply.
Because of its minimal footprint, a sound wall offers a wider range of locations for its
installation, thus possibly avoiding encroachment issues. However, the further a sound
wall is removed from the noise source, the less effective it will be.
A secondary consideration with a sound wall is the potential for traffic noise from
Tamarisk Row Drive to be reflected back onto nearby residences, thus compounding one
problem while mitigating another. Potential impacts to receivers north of the railroad
and freeway are also possible.
As with a berm, a detailed study would be required to determine the obtainable benefit
from a sound wall.
Track Elevation
As mentioned above, lowering the railroad tracks would reduce the height requirement of
either a berm or sound wall. Depressing the tracks below grade may provide sufficient
mitigation against train noise without the necessity of a berm or wall. Such an
arrangement would provide no relief against freeway noise, however, and would likely
entail cost, coordination, and engineering requirements beyond the obtainable benefit.
Moreover, administrative controls on train whistling would obtain equal or better benefits
without incurring substantial costs.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 21 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Appendix 1: Noise Regulations & Procedures
Local Noise Standards
County of Riverside General Plan (Adopted 7 Oct 2003)
The County General Plan recognizes the existence of distinct Incorporated cities such as
Palm Desert as separate entities and refers the reader to the corresponding City General
Plan for guidance in proposed projects.
Citv of Palm Desert General Plan/ Noise Element (Adopted 15 Mar 20041
The current City of Palm Desert Noise Element indicates that I-10 and the Union Pacific
Railroad freight are generators of substantial noise levels. The City has requested that the
project be reviewed against the current City General Plan Noise Element and Noise
Code. Policy 8 indicates that the City will work with adjoining municipalities to assure
noise -compatible land uses across jurisdictional boundaries.
Figure 27 is the noise/land-use compatibility matrix from the city's general plan. Levels
are stated in terms of CNEL.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 22 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Land Use Compatibility. for Community Noise Environments
CNEL (dBA)
Laud Uses
Residential - Single Family Dwellings, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential — Multiple Family
Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels
School Classrooms. Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
and Convalescent Hospitals
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Source: Palm Desert General Plan Update Noise Background Stud
Department of Health Services, "Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General
Plan," 1990
Explanatory Notes
® Normally Acceptable: With no special noise reduction requirements assuming standard constriction.
Coaditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design
®Normally Unacceptable: New construction discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis
of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
IClearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Figure 27: Noise/land-use compatibility matrix from City of Palm Desert general plan noise element
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 23 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Citv of Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance 9.24.030 (dated Augg 997)
The City of Palm Desert noise ordinance provides the noise limits in Table 3 for
residential properties:
Table 3: Palm Desert noise ordinance residential limits
Land Use Category Time Noise Limit
(1-hour average dBA)
{ Residential -all zones 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55
{ Residential -all zones 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45
The code also stipulates that if the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable
limit as noted in the table, then the allowable average sound level is then the ambient
noise level. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation
is not operating. The ambient is defined in the code as the "all encompassing noise levels
associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources,
excluding the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a
comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made."
The ordinance acknowledges that disturbing, excessive or offensive noises within the
limits of Palm Desert is a condition which has persisted, and the level and frequency of
occurrences of such noises continue to increase. It also finds and declares that
inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the
residents of the City of Palm Desert, and every person is entitled to an environment in
which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health, or enjoyment of property.
The rail and the traffic noise impinging on the project site are part of the ambient noise
conditions and cannot be "turned off'. These noise sources are acknowledged as prime
noise generators in the City's General Plan.
State Noise Standards
California State Government Code Section 65302
This statute mandates that noise elements be included as a part of city general plans and
that cities adopt comprehensive noise ordinances.
California Health and Safetv Code Sections 46000 — 46080 The California Noise
Control Act of 1973
This act states that all Californians are "entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment
without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare" and it
is the "policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise
that jeopardizes their health or welfare." To that end, the California Noise Control Act
states that the state department has an Office of Noise Control, whose functions should
include monitoring noise, providing assistance to local government entities, and
developing criteria, guidelines and standards. It directs the Office of Noise Control to
coordinate with state planning and local agency planning department to periodically
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 24 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
provide new information for revisions of noise elements of general plans. It encourages
enactment and enforcement of local ordinances. The establishment of the Office of Noise
Control was not considered an expansion or limitation "on the right of any person to
maintain at any time any appropriate action for relief against any private nuisance as
defined in the Civil Code or for relief against any noise pollution." The State of
California Office of Noise Control is no longer in existence. Table 4 shows the state
noise/land-use compatibility guidelines for residential uses.
Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Unacceptable
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable
50-60 dBA 55-70 dBA 70-75 dBA 75-85 dBA
Source: Califomia Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines - Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEV)
Table 4: State of California Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Federal Noise Standards
Environmental Protection A eQ ncv
The Environmental Protection Agency sets uniform noise standards for interstate motor
carriers and railroads, medium and heavy duty trucks, and motorcycles among other
noise sources.
The Federal Highway Administration enforces noise standards for motor carriers engaged
in interstate commerce. For highway travel, the standards range from 81 to 93 dBA,
depending on the speed and the distance from which the sound is measured. The
standards for motorcycles apply to those made after 1982 and range from 80 to 86 dBA.
The standards for trucks over 10,000 pounds apply to those made after 1978 and range
from 80 to 83 dBA depending on the model year.
The Federal Railroad Administration enforces noise standards for trains engaged in
interstate commerce. For locomotives built before 1980, noise is limited to 96 dBA at
cruising speeds, and after 1980, the noise is limited to 90 dBA. Noise from railway cars
must not exceed 88 dBA at speeds of 45 mph or less, and must not exceed 93 dBA at
speeds greater than 45 mph. This does not include train horn, whistles or bell noises.
Federal Highway Administration
Any proposed widening of Interstate 10 would result in a noise -impact study and
possible mitigation. The study would follow the procedures in the Caltrans Traffic Noise
Protocol or similar procedures set forth by the Federal Highway Administration as
appropriate. The following Caltrans FAQ briefly describes the procedures for
determining whether an impact exists and whether abatement is required. Noise levels
are in terms of A -weighted one -hour averages (Leq), not CNEL or Ldn, and generally
refer to peak hours.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 25 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
.Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Caltrans FAQ regarding noise impacts:
When is a traffw noise analysis required?
A traffic noise analysis is required for any state or federal highway construction or reconstruction
projects that:
• Is on new alignment, or
• Involves the physical alteration of existing highway alignment which:
• Significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment, or
• Increases the number of through -traffic lanes
These projects are called Type I Projects, and generally include those projects that have the potential
to increase traffic noise at adjacent receivers. For example: the addition of an interchange, ramp,
HOV or auxiliary lane to an existing highway (CATNAP 1.1 & 2.1).
Is a traff noise analysis required even if a Type I Project does not change ambient noise levels?
Yes, the Federal noise standard, embodied in Title 23 CFR Part 772, requires an analysis of
sufficient scope to determine if a traffic noise impact exists (CATNAP 2.2 & 2.3).
When does a traffic noise impact occur?
A traffic noise impact will occur at a noise sensitive land -use if:
• Predicted noise levels with the project change substantially (increase by 12 decibels or more) over
existing ambient noise levels, or
• Predicted noise levels with the project approach to within 1 decibel, or exceed the noise abatement
criteria, as indicated in the table below (CaTNAP 2.4)
Noise Abatement Criteria
Land -use Hourly
Activity A-Wei&ted
Category Noise Level,
dBA Lm#hi
A 57
Exterior
B 67
Exterior
C 72
Exterior
D --
E 52Interior
Description of Activities
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas,
parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
Categories A or B above.
Undeveloped lands.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Must a noise barrier be built if the project results in a trafJ'ic noise impact?
If a state or federal construction or reconstruction project (Type 1) results in the occurrence of a
traffic noise impact at a noise sensitive land -use, noise abatement measures must be considered.
Only noise abatement measures that are feasible and reasonable are considered candidates for
construction.
Feasible refers to the minimum noise reduction performance criterion (5 decibels or more) for the
proposed noise abatement when built to engineered standards (safety, height, highway and local
access considerations, topography, etc.). The feasibility of the abatement measures being considered
is determined from technical acoustical and highway engineering studies (CaTNAP 2.7).
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 26 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Federal Railroad Administration/Federal Transit Administration
Similar to the freeway, any proposed additional tracks in the rail corridor would require
an assessment of noise impacts using procedures described in the Federal Transit
Administration's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report.
A screening procedure identifies whether there is likely to be a noise impact on any
nearby sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project. Figure 28, Table 5, and Table 6
are used to determine if an impact occurs and the severity of the impact. Residential
land -uses (Category 2) are assessed using Ldn rather than hourly -average levels.
It is interesting to note that, based upon existing noise levels alone, an assessment using
Table 6 would identify either an "impact" or a "severe impact" along Tamarisk Row
Drive.
Table S: FTA Land Use Categories (Residences are Land Use Category 2 with Ldn as the metric)
Land Use CatWries and Metrics for Traa& Noise Impact Criteria
IF Use Nobe Metric
Category (dBA)
Description of Land Use Category
Tracts of land whoa quiet is an essential element in than intended purpose.
1 Outdoor L%Q(h).
This category includes lands sex aside for serenity and quiet, and such land
uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National
Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use.
Residences and buildings wham people nom ally sleep. This category
2 Outdoor Lr
includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise
is assumed to be of utmost '.. ., .....
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This
category includes schools, h'braries, and churches where it is important to
avoid ..s..fa..- -- with such activities as speech, meditation and
3 Outdoor LM(h)'
concentration on Ong material. Buildings with interior spaces whom
quid is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording
studios and concert halls fall into this category. Places for meditation or
study associated with cemetaries, monuments, museums. Certain historical
sites, parks and recreational facilities are also included.
L. for the noisiest hour of transit -related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 27 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoust/cal Consultants
Table 6: FTA screening criteria (Residences are Land Use Category 2 with Ldn as the metric)
E:b ft
Noise
Emm "
Noise Levels Defining Impact for Traadt Projects
Project Nate Impact EVown,' I ,,(h) or I.. (d RA)
Category 1 or 2 Saes
Category 3 Silas
Of
(dHA)
No Impact
Impact
Severe Impact
No Impact
Severe
Impact Impact
<43
< Ambia*+10
Ambient +
>Ambient+15
<Ambient+15
Ambt nt + >Ambient+20
43
<52
52-58
>58
<57
57-63
>63
44
<52
52-58
>58
<57
57-63
>63
45
<52
52-58
>58
<57
57-63
>63
46
<53
53-59
>59
<58
59-64
>64
47
<53
53-39
>59
<58
59-64
>64
48
<53
53-59
>59
<58
58-64
>64
49
<54
54-59
>59
<59
59-64
>64
50
<34
54-59
>59
<59
59-64
>64
51
<54
54-60
>60
<59
59-65
>65
52
<55
55-60
>60
<60
60-65
>65
53
<55
55-60
>60
<60
60-65
>65
54
<55
55-61
>61
<60
60-66
>66
55
<56
5"1
>61
<61
61-66
>66
56
<56
56-62
>62
<61
61-67
>67
57
<57
57-62
>62
<62
62-67
>67
58
<57
57-62
>62
<62
62-67
>67
59
<58
58-63
>63
<63
63-M
>68
60
<58
58-63
>63
<63
63-69
>68
61
<59
59-64
>64
<64
64-69
>69
62
<59
59-64
>64
<64
64-69
>69
63
<60
60-65
>65
<65
65-70
>70
64
<61
61-65
>65
<66
66-70
>70
65
<61
61-66
>66
<66
66-71
>71
66
<62
62-67
>67
<67
67-72
>72
67
<63
63-67
>67
<68
68-72
>72
68
<63
63-68
>68
<69
68-73
>73
69
<64
64-69
>69
<69
69-74
>74
70
<65
65-69
>69
<70
70-74
>74
71
<66
66-70
>70
<71
71-75
>75
72
<66
66-71
>71
<71
71-76
>76
73
<66
66-71
>71
<71
71-76
>76
74
<66
66-72
>72
<71
71-77
>77
75
<66
66.73
>73
<71
71-78
>78
76
<66
66-74
>74
<71
71-79
>79
77
<66
66-74
>74
<71
71-79
>79
>77
<66
66-75
>75
<71
71-80
>80
' Ld is used fear land use where nighttime sensitivity is a factor;1. during the hair of maximum transit noise
exposum
is used for land use involving only daytime activities.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 28 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
:Ti
75
N r
C _
70
Q 65
3
m 60
•�'
85
:c
M
75 c
70 U a
_ 65
55 60 'o
o z
z
50 55
NO IMPACT Nose exposure is in terms a
tL
45 of L,q (h) for Category 50
1 and 3 land uses, Ldn for
Category 2 land uses.
40 45
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)
Figure 28: FTA screening criteria (Residences are Land Use Category 2 with Ldn as the metric)
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 29 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
The Federal Railroad Administration has recently changed the rules regarding
establishment of "quiet zones". The following is their press release regarding the new
rule:
Friday, April 22, 2005 (Washington, DC) Thousands of communities nationwide wilt have
the choice to consider silencing train horns at highway -rail grade crossings based on meeting
safety needs, under a Final Rule made public today by the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA). In addition, the rule provides a process for localities with existing whistle bans to
retain their bans.
"At every step of the process we listened closely to the concerns of the public and local
officials to craft a rule that balances safety and quality of life issues," said FRA Acting
Administrator Robert D. Jamison. "Communities will have significant flexibility to establish
or maintain quiet zones for the benefit of their residents while keeping highway -rail grade
crossings safe for motorists."
The Final Train Horn Rule becomes effective on June 24, 2005, and is the result of a 1994
law mandating the use of the locomotive horn at all public highway -rail grade crossings with
certain exceptions. This rule will pre-empt applicable state laws and related railroad
operating rules requiring locomotive horns be sounded, and it also will supersede the
previously issued Interim Final Rule.
The Final Rule provides for six types of quiet zones, ensures the involvement of state
agencies and railroads in the quiet zone development process, gives communities credit for
pre-existing safety warning devices at grade crossings and addresses other issues including
pedestrian crossings within a quiet zone.
The establishment of a new quiet zone requires at minimum that each grade crossing be
equipped with flashing lights and gates. Additional safety measures may be required to
compensate for the absence of the horn as a warning device. New quiet zones can be in
effect 24-hours a day or just during the overnight period between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Communities with a whistle ban in effect on Oct. 9, 1996, the date Congress directed FRA to
specifically address the issue of existing bans, and on Dec. 18, 2003, the date the Interim
Final Rule was published, will be able to continue to keep the train horns silent for at least
an additional five to eight years as they plan for and install any additional necessary safety
measures.
Communities with a whistle ban created after Oct. 9, 1996, and in effect on Dec. 18, 2003,
will have one year to install any additional necessary safety measures before the train horns
will start sounding again.
The rule also establishes the first -ever maximum train horn volume level and will reduce the
amount of time the horn is sounded, which will be beneficial to communities that decide
not to pursue quiet zones.
The Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings is available
at the U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System web site at
httD://dms.dct.ttov/ docket number FRA-1999-6439-3923. Additional information is located
at the FRA web site at www.fra.dot. ttov.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 30 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
Appendix 2: Fundamentals of Noise
Rapid variations in ambient air pressure are perceived as sound by the human ear when
they occur within certain limits. Specifically, the ear is sensitive to variations which
occur at the rate of twenty times per second (20 Hertz) to twenty -thousand times per
second, and at pressure differentials of at least twenty millionths of a Pascal (20
micropascals).
These are extreme limits for healthy ears. Most human hearing takes place in the
frequency range of 100 Hz to 10,000 Hz, with the highest sensitivity at about 4,000 Hz.
The human voice contains most of its energy in the frequency range between 125 Hertz
and 8,000 Hertz.
The pressure variation of 20 micropascals is the lower limit of perceptibility. Human
hearing extends from this limit up to the threshold of discomfort where pressure
variations approach 20 pascals --a range of one million to one. Because of this large
range of values, sound pressure is usually measured in terms of "decibels":
L = 20 log( P )
Po
L is the value of sound pressure level in decibels, P is the mean pressure variation, and
Po is the lower limit described above. Sound pressure levels are referenced to the lower
limit of hearing, meaning a level of zero decibels corresponds to that limit whereas a
level of one -hundred decibels represents a pressure variation one -hundred thousand
times greater than that limit. The logarithmic conversion provides a compression effect.
Thus, sound pressure level is a method of expressing the wide range of human hearing in
a manageable range of numerical values.
Because of the logarithmic conversion, decibel arithmetic
works differently than ordinary arithmetic. Doubling the
sound power in a measured environment results in only a three
decibel addition to the measured values, not a doubling of the
number of decibels; a ten -fold increase in the sound power
results in an addition of ten decibels to the measured value.
Similarly, averaging sound levels involves taking the anti-
logarithms of measured sound levels. A simple arithmetic
average of sound levels produces meaningless results,
particularly if the two levels are widely divergent. (Note,
however, that local ordinances often use a simple arithmetic
average of sound levels when setting statutory thresholds on
property -line limits involving two different zoning areas.)
Conveniently, human perception of "loudness" is also
approximately logarithmic. A three decibel change in sound
level is just noticeable to most people. A five decibel change
dBA
120 rock concert
110
1 lawn mower
so
80 school cafeteria
7o
60
normal conversation
50
40
30 whisper
20
10
hearing threshold
Figure A
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 31 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
■Medlin & Associates, Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
is readily noticeable, whereas a change of ten decibels is usually perceived as a doubling
of the "volume".
Because human hearing is not equally sensitive at all frequencies, various weighting
schemes have been developed to account for these variations. The most commonly used
is the "A" weighting. It heavily discounts measured levels at lower frequencies, while
providing slight emphasis around 2500 Hertz. The abbreviation for decibels is "dB".
When levels have been A -weighted, they are expressed as "dBA" or "dB(A)". Figure A
depicts several representative noise sources and the A -weighted sound levels they
produce at a typical receiver location.
Objects in the environment rarely produce steady levels of noise. Fluctuating levels
produce fluctuating measurements, thus requiring a method of describing the noise
environment in a meaningful way. The common method in use is the equivalent -
continuous sound level, abbreviated Lam, which expresses the energy -average noise level
over a specified interval of time (typically one hour). It is important to note that, like
other averaging methods, Lq does not indicate the range of noise level measurements.
Two identical values of Leq may represent two widely different ranges of actual noise
measurements. Because of the logarithmic nature of expressing sound level, however,
very loud sounds of any significant duration will tend to "swamp" quieter sounds of
longer duration, thus biasing measurements in favor of the louder sounds.
Because quieter conditions are normally preferred during sleeping hours, various
measures have been developed which account for additional annoyance produced by
noises occurring at night. In California, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
is standard in most statutes and requirements. CNEL is a twenty-four how "equivalent"
noise level. It accounts for the additional annoyance above by adding a 5 decibel penalty
to noises measured between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., and a 10 decibel penalty to noises
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.. An alternative measure, the Day -Night Level (DNL or Ldn)
is similar to CNEL but does not assess a penalty from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
DNL and CNEL are average values only. Because a noise source produces a DNL or
CNEL value below a specified threshold does not mean that the noise will be inaudible.
Rather, DNL and CNEL thresholds are normally set so that the occurrence of a disturbing
noise is not so frequent that it causes substantial annoyance to people or other receivers
in the affected area.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 32 City of Palm Desert Tamarisk Row
C,IIY 01 P 0 M O�SEP�
7 3 5 1 0 FRL:D WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 2 60-2 5 7 H
TEL: 760 346—O61I
FAX: 760 i40-0574
aiyhallC%,u.palm-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE. MAYOR ---- - � -- - � - -- �- �----
April 15, 2005
Daniel H. Banchiu
1900 Alaskan Way, No. 316
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: 39-665 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Dear Mr. Banchiu:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been rece;ved and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comrnents will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
SincereI
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Councii
City Clerk
I I y 5[ P 0 [ M 01
7 3-5 l o FRI:u WARIN(; DRIVE:
PALM DI?SFRT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-061 I
FAX: 760 340-0574
ciryha11C&ci.palm-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Carol Ann Johnson
76-803 Castle Court
Palm Desert, California 92211
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been recei.red and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely, '
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
n
I I y 0 1 P 0 1 M 0 1
7 3-5 1 O FREIN WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6 i I
FAX: 760 34O-0574
citvhallCQci.palm-deserc.ca. us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Kelly J. and Janice Flanagan
76-874 Abbey Court
Palm Desert, California 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Flanagan:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sin, rely
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
cc: City Council
City Clerk
y 0 P 0 1 M 61��P�
7 3-5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEE: 760 346—o61 I
I FAx:76o 340-0574
I cityhall(,ki. palm-deserE.Ca. LIS
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Larry and Betty Venhuisen
76-853 Castle Court
Palm Desert, California 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Venhuisen:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincer,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
I I y 0 f P H I M 0 1
7 3-5 I o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIF-ORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o61 i
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityha11@ci.pa1m-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE. MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Mark and Michelle Stravolo
76-785 Ascot Circle
Palm Desert, California 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stavolo:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
i
Sincerely
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
cc: City Council
City Clerk
- P M 0
I T r I
1 7 3-5 1 0 f'RFD WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6 i i
FAX:760 340-0574
cityhall@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Mr. Dennis De Groot
76-820 Ascot Circle
Palm Desert, California 92211
Dear Mr. De Groot:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
11
Sincer -- ----- `--
l
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
I I y 0 1 P 0 1 M 0
7 3-5 1 O FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-o61 i
FAX: 760 3,10-0574
ciryhall(?,ci.pal m-descri.ca. us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Mr. David D. Welty
39-165 Regency Way
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Welty:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Since , j
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
I I y 9 1 P 0 [ M 0EER
73-5 10 FRED WARINCi DRIVF'
PAI-M DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6 i 1
FAX: 760 340-0574
ciryha11@ci.pa]m-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Chris A. Buscaglia D.D.S.
39-580 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Dear Dr. Buscaglia:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincer
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
r I I Y 01 P H I M 0 1 � I R 1
7 3-5 I o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TF.L: 760 346-o6I I
FAx:760 340-0574
cityhall@ci.palm- desert.ca. us
OFFICE. OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Alan Young
39-855 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Young:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincelty,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
ci r�r�oa ��-•o�irui�
I I y 0E P 0 1 M DESEPI
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE.
PALM DL•'SER"r, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—O61 I
I:Ax: 760 i40-0574
cityhallC-ci.paltn-descrr.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Faud Shakir Mulla
39-225 Regency Way
Palm Desert, California 92211
Dear Mr. Mulla:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincere)
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
ci rri,nc oe nrtnm ruu
Lily of PHIM OMPI
7 3 — 5 1 0 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o61 i
FAX:760 340-0574
cityhaJ1Ca)ci.pa1m-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Donald and Nelly Marsee
39-865 Saint Michael Place
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marsee:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely
B ORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
I y 0 1 P 0 1 M 0 1
7 3-5 i o FRI:D WARING DRIVE
PALM DESLRT, CAIAFORNfA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6I i
FAX: 760 34c,-0574
cf tyhal lCa)ci. palm-desert.ca. us
OFFICE OF I'IIE MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Harold and Margaret Frye
1612 5th Street
Manhatten Beach, California 90266
Re: 76-787 Bishop Place
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frye:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will ,be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sin7y'
r _-
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:lw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
.,•
`J rPirft+Ox PF(I;IF)+Arfx
I y 0 P 0 1 M 9 1
7 3-5 1 0 FRIA) WARING DRIVE
i PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-o61I
FAX: 760 340-0574
cttyhall@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE ?MAYOR
April 15, 2005
Harold and Margaret Frye
1612 5th Street
Manhatten Beach, California 90266
Re: 76-787 Bishop Place
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frye:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will ,be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincer�y,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
n
�i rnwrc o. rtn;�ro •�+�.
April 1, 2005
0
Qn
v::�
> -�
p
M
Palm Desert City Council
=
Mi
City of Palm Desert
Mi`_.�
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
=
m
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
w
-4`f'
���
>n
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
—
m
Dear Honorable .Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
71GZB? P'ft'.� Pie._
Street Address
Palm Desert CA 92211
RESULTS TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY GIS QUERY Page 1 of 1
Riverside County GIS
This information is made available through the Riverside County Geographic Information System. This
information is for reference purposes only. It is intended to be used as base level information only and is
not intended to replace any recorded documents or other public records. Contact appropriate County
Department or Agency if necessary. Reference to recorded documents and public records may be
necessary.
GIS inquiry for APN = 626250023 ... Request = OWNER
. parcel_number : 626250023
. parcel_owner : FRYE HAROLD
. parcel _owner: FRYE MARGARET
. mail_to_name :
. mail _to_street: 1612 5TH ST
. mail _to_city: MANHATTAN BEACH CA
. mail -to -zip: 90266
For further information or questions, please contact ...
River_side_County Assessors Office
(909) 955 - 6200
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA. 92501
http://www.tlma.co.riverside. ca. us/cgi-binlgisquery3. cgi?APN=626250023 &REQUEST=O WNE... 4/ 15/2005
CITY 01 PHIM OHIPT
73-510 FREI) WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-o611
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityhallC&)ci.pal m-desert.ca.us
OFFICE. OF THE MAYOR
April 20, 2005
Mr. James R. Barry
39-640 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. Barry:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad ;Noise Abatement
Pear Honorable Mayor and !Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
r 164, i
Street Address 64 G z a /�
Palm Desert CA 92211
CITY RE PRIM DHIPT
1 7 3-5 10 FRED WARING DRIVE
iPALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-o61 i
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityhall@ci.palm-dcsert.ca.us
OFFIcE OF THE MAYOR
April 20, 2005
Ms. and Mrs. James Coons
76-801 Manor Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Coons:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:lw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
A
�j* rcrpic nou
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
o
�?
City of Palm Desert
C
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
«,
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
r` +
CO
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
-0
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
w
_n
r
00
=,
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
rn
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
I ncreased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincercly,
'7� - <RO /
Street Address
e0o"-) 5 -
f'i'I t r�a.0
Palm Desert CA 9221 1
.4LonJ) w+_44,
1
�aln�s 1�ay � ��airtE �oons
71 SO,'� �-Za=
�� L)EJE2E, C.-oT 92271
CC) vrn G< C, tj'
Iw ) - a14U % .l
L6 5-e �a V c !2 +
y, O 1-s-t
C-71 Prrl %r-",Je.
CO vn -j'-
[IIY OE PH [ M OESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o61I
j FAx:76o 340-0574
I ciryhallCvci.palm-deserr.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 20, 2005
Ms. Maria Neatherton
39-550 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Ms. Neatherton:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
April 1. 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an, unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
rco- fi a4u�kYL--'
Street Address
Palm Desert CA 92211 N
0
o
=,
r ;^
0�
D n
m
CITY OE PRIOR DESERT
1 7 3-5 I o FREI) WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6I I
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityhall@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 20, 2005
Ms. Carol Secor
39-825 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Ms. Secor:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
�,isCEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PALM DESERT, CA
2005 APR IS PH 2: 44
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
rGIKS
Street Address
Palm Desert CA 92211
CITY DE P 0 [ M DESERT
7 3-5 c o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o61 i
FAX: 760 340-0574
I ciryha11@ci.pa1m-deserc.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 29, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Shaeps
76-792 Lancelot Court
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shaeps:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUF RD ACRITES
MAYOR
BAC:lw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
t� .-«o 0. atc.aFu.uu
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PALM DESERT, CA
2005 APR 21 PM 2, 45
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
N� C141AW 1__4 L-1404 S&tWS
Street Address La
Palm Desert CA 92211
CITY of PRIM DESERT
1 7 3-5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TEL: 760 346—O61 I
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityha11@ci.pa1m-desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 29, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Barry Gorfine
39-735 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gorfine:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:Iw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PALtl DESERT, CA
2005 APR 21 PM 2: 45
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
lour prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Street Address
Palm Desert CA 9221 1 7-7
_�.�3S
CITY of PRIM UH[RT
7 3 - 5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 2 60— 2 5 7 8
TEL: 760 346-061I
FAX:760 340-0574
ciryhall@ci. pal m-desert. ca. us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 3, 2005
Mr. Kent Sowell
39-670 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. Sowell:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUF RD . CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:lw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
N
`i rli�rlC OM �![�RED i�1M
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
4.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
g� /00 c Street Address
Palm Desert CA 92211
CITY Of PRIM 0HIRI
7 3-5 I o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o61 i
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityha1J@Ci.P21m-desert.ca.us
OFFICE. OF THE MAYOR
May 6, 2005
Landa Iverson, Ph.D
39-800 St. Michael Place
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Dr. Iverson:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFO CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:wm
cc: City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad .'Noise Abatement
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Street Address
Palm Desert CA 92211
I I I Y of P 0 L M oESEwt
73-5I0 FRRD WARING DRIVE
PALyI DESERT', CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TFL: 760 346—v6 r r
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityha11C)ci.palm-dcscrt.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 24, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Rucker
39195 Regency Way
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rucker:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFOR A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:wm
cc:
93 rcinmc.ac.ato,.vtc
City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
f' 3
cm O
0
T+ -i
C-M
✓ -C
Falm Desert City Council"
City of Falm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
`a
Nx
Falm Desert CA 92260-2578
moo
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
r
��
D �
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
�
rn
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
� i1 S 16 C6)'��
Street Address
Falm Desert CA 92211
CITY Of POLM UM91
73-510 'RED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-o6 i I
FAX: 760 340-0574
cityhallC ci.palm -desert.ca.us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 24, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Legawicz
39675 St. Michael Place
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Legawicz:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincere
BUFOR A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:wm
cc
v�
q �ni.nrn urar�+wu
City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
rJ
—+
s
NMI
� �
�.
cam
Palm Desert City Council
w
0 ��,
_ .-
City of Palm Desert
rn
30,1101
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
M
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
W
�
C)
a0
0
m
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in our
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Street Address
Falco Desert CA 92211 s It sw-"/O
�b
C_-
('��-�� � �2CL�f S v�c�' CN�� �b V�0.� v\��'� 0. wc�v�c�-+r�•�-\
..� ... .�.--, c�.- ' _ _ r � r, �i• . `( �vd-� V� ��O � �-Q �'SCt�` tir� � 5�+-1-0.
C11Y Of PRIM OHIRI
1 7 3-5 I o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6 i I
FAX:760 340-0574
cityhall@ci.pal m-dcscrt.ca. us
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 24, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Rex Pruett
76-800 Lancelot Court
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Re: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pruett:
Your letter of April 1, 2005 has been received and distributed to
members of the City Council. Your comments will be included
as part of our agenda packet when this item comes back for a
formal Council action this spring.
We appreciate your concerns, and the City will attempt to
respond in a fashion we believe is appropriate to our
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
BUFORD A. CRITES
MAYOR
BAC:wm
cc: City Council
City Clerk
April 1, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
RE: Highway & Railroad Noise Abatement
Dear honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are writing to you to express our concern with the noise that is generated in out,
community by the increased highway and railroad noise.
When our community was built in 1987, the noise that was generated by the vehicles
and trucks traveling on Interstate 10 at that time was minimal, as the number of
vehicles traveling on the Interstate was far less than what it is today. Additionally, the
increased numbers of trains that travel past our community, now sounding their horns,
have increased the noise levels to an unacceptable decibel.
We ask that you take a more pro -active role in resolving this very important health
related concern. There are Federal grants available to do this work. There are
companies that install sound absorbing walls, which are very cost efficient. We are
looking to you, our city representatives, for a solution to our concerns.
Your prompt efforts toward resolving this health issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Street Address o
Palm Desert CA 92211
r �QO
n�
rn