The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-08-10 City Council (22)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 11 FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER AUGUST 10, 1998 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR:343:98 SUBJECT:REVIEW OF A REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THREE APPEALS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-UP.1 AT 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, FOR AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SERVICE (TENNIS FACILITY) ON THE FORMER CHUCK THOMPSON TENNIS AND SWIM CENTER SITE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) 2) Review and approve the attached revised mitigated negative declaration (Attachment B), which determines that the project will have no significant environmental impact if certain mitigation measures are included as project conditions of approval; Deny the three appeals; and 3)Approve the conditional use permit (CUP), allowing the operation of an outdoor recreational service (tennis facility) with related parking, landscaping, landscaped park area and bathroom facilities based on the attached proposed Findings and subject to the proposed Conditions (see Attachments C and D, respectively). BACKGROUND Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to redevelop the site in the following manner: CMR:343:98 Page 1 of 9 Phase 1: Refurbish the four existing tennis courts (possibly reorienting two of them); construct a passive park area with landscaping; and construct parking lot improvements. Phase 2: Construct a fifth tennis court and restrooms facilities. If Phase 2 is implemented, the restroom facilities would be located between tennis court numbers 3 and 5, and movable benches would be installed between the three other courts during tournament play. It should be noted that the applicant has not designated a specific time period within which Phase 2 will be constructed. Phase 2 will only be constructed if a demonstrated demand for additional facilities is evident. The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures and the proposed conditions of approval include conditions that are associated with the two specific phases of the project. The three appeals were heard by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1996. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the appeals and approve the use permit with conditions. The appeals were heard by the City Council on September 15, at which time the item was continued so that further public testimony could be taken. After the September 15, 1997 City Council meeting, the project was considered again at the December 1, 1997 City Council meeting. At that December City Council meeting, staffwas directed to revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the noise mitigations presented in letters dated October 29 and 30, 1997 from the acoustical consulting firm of Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. to former Vice Mayor Ron Anderson (see Attachments E and F). The City Council also directed staff to assess any environmental impacts that could potentially result from the height and location of the sound walls. The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and advertised for the required 20-day review period, from July 17, 1998 to August 10, 1998. The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and appeals of the Zoning Administrator approval are now forwarded to the City Council final review and action. A complete chronology of major events regarding this project is attached to this report (see Attachment G). DISCUSSION The City Council identified several potentially significant environmental issues at the December 1, 1997 meeting and requested the following additional information related to the sound walls: height, location, material and maintenance of the sound walls; wind pattern and air movement impacts; tree removal impacts; aesthetic impacts; and shadow impacts. The information was prepared by DEVA Designs, CSI’s design consultant, and reviewed by City CMR:343:98 Page 2 of 9 of Palo Alto Planning staff and the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Design Consultant (see Attachments I, J and K). The applicant also raised questions about the cost of the sound walls and the possibility of the City of Palo Alto funding a portion of the construction costs. The cost of the sound walls is not an environmental issue and was not included in the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it is discussed below, after environmental issues. Sound Walls The following eleven acoustical analyses have been prepared for this project: 1) 2) 3) 4) April 8, 1996 Acoustical Analysis prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates (ELPA) for Community Skating Inc. (CSI); November 7, 1996 Acoustical Report prepared by Vincent Salmon for John Abrahams and Wei Wang (appellants); November 13, 1996 letter submitted by ELPA for CSI supplementing the April 8, 1996 acoustical report; January 15, 1997 addendum prepared by ELPA for CSI to further supplement the original April 8, 1996 analysis; 5)January 23, 1997 response to ELPA prepared by Vincent Salmon for J. Abrahams and W. Wang (appellants); 6)April 16, 1997 report prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin for the City of Palo Alto; 7)June 12, 1997 response to Illingworth and Rodkin report prepared by ELPA for CSI; 8)July 2, 1997 response to Illingworth and Rodkin report prepared by V. Salmon for J. Abrahams; 9)July 12, 1997 response to ELPA and V. Salmon’s responses prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin for the City of Palo Alto; 10)October 29, 1997 report prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin for the City of Palo Alto; and 11) October 30, 1997 report prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin for the City of Palo Alto. CMR:34~3:98 Page 3 of 9 The acoustical analyses compare the proposed tennis facility to the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance for uses on public property adjacent to residential properties (Chapter 9.10 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code). In addition, the reports provide considerable detail regarding ambient noise levels in the area; when, where and how noise measurements were taken; and the appropriate mitigation for potentially significant noise impacts. The acoustical consultant hired by the City of Palo Alto, Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., prepared the two final acoustical reports. Its October 29, 1997 report recommended ten- foot-high sound walls along the northem property line and the westem edge of the site, and either a fourteen-foot,high acoustical barrier along the eastern property line or a ten-foot- high acoustical barrier along the eastern edge of court number 5. The report noted that exceedence of noise levels along the eastern property line could be dependent on the age and comparative strength of the players on court number 5, which is located closest to the eastern property line. The final analysis dated October 30, 1997, therefore, recommended continued monitoring of the use of the fifth tennis court to insure that there would not be exceedance of the noise ordinance as a result of play on that court. At the December 1, 1997 City Council meeting, a Council Member suggested placing an eight-foot-high sound wall at the eastern property line in conjunction with continued monitoring of noise levels at the eastern property line for the first year of operation. The monitoring would occur on one Saturday per month and periodically during tournaments. The results of the monitoring would be given to the Zoning Administrator. If violations occur, the Zoning Administrator would be authorized to schedule a use permit hearing to consider operational restrictions on the use of the fifth court or other physical solutions, including construction of the fourteen-foot-high barrier along the eastern property line. Although the City’s acoustical consultant had recommended a fourteen-foot-high sound wall along the eastern property line, the consultant supports the on-going monitoring of that .court for a year to confirm that an eight-foot-high wall in conjunction with operational restrictions on the fifth court would be sufficient to reduce the noise to allowable levels under the Noise Ordinance. It should be noted, however, that if Phase Two does not occur and a fifth court is not built, a sound wall or monitoring along the eastern property line will not be required. The acoustical consultants for both the City and the applicant state that any of the following materials are equally effective for acoustical attenuation: masonry panels, masonry’block, wood or concrete panels. These materials, constructed in an air tight fashion .with a surface weight of at least 3 pounds per square foot, will bring noise levels down to 56 dBA, which satisfies the noise ordinance standards of 15 dB above the ambient. The City Council discussed the need for masonry sound walls at the December 1, 1997 meeting. Any of the proposed sound wall materials can be constructed with a pier and grade beam foundation that will minimize the impact on surrounding trees (see further discussion Under "Trees" below). CMR:343:98 Page 4 of 9 The neighbors have expressed concerns about maintenance of the soundwalls. Wooden walls have higher maintenance costs, but if kept in good repair should last 15 to 20 years before replacement is required. A condition of use permit approval has been added to require code enforcement inspections every two years to monitor maintenance of the sound walls, whether constructed of wood or masonry. Wind Pattems/Air Movement: The applicant’s consultant and the City ofPalo CIP Design consultant both indicated that the sound walls required as mitigation for potential noise impacts will have potentially significant impacts on air movement unless mitigated. The .ten-foot-high wall alongthe northern property line will create updrafts and breezes on adjacent residential properties that are not currently experienced on those sites. A stepped screen of plant material on the tennis facility side of the wall will substantially reduce the updrafts and breezes. The breezes and updrafts created by the ten-foot-high wall along the western edge of the site will not impact residences on the opposite side of Matadero Creek because the breezes and drafts will dissipate prior to reaching those properties. The updrafts and breezes created by the eight-foot-high wall on the eastern property line will be mitigated by the existing plant materials on each side of the wall. The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes a mitigation measure of two rows of plant material along the tennis facility side of the sound wall on the northern property line.- This "green screen" will funnel air up and over the wall and backyards of adjacent homeowners. This mitigation measure as also been included in the proposed conditions of project approval. Tree Removal: The project arborist’s report indicates that there are 18 existing trees located on the project site and that ten of them are expected to be removed to accommodate either the sound walls or the overall design of the project. None of the trees proposed for removal are protected by the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation and Maintenance Ordinance. All ten of the trees are, however, mature landscape features on the site. Five of the ten trees would be removed because of conflict with the project design or the health of adjacent trees. Two of these five are in poor condition, two are in fair condition and one is in good condition. An additional five trees would be removed to accommodate the location of the sound walls. Two of these five trees are in good condition and three are in fair condition. If the sound walls have a pier and grade beam foundation, the posts can be placed to avoid root zones and some of the five trees adjacent to the walls may not need to be removed. In addition, three trees in the parking lot would need to be replaced with a more appropriate species. A mitigation measure included as a condition of use permit approval proposes a general 2:1 replacement ratio for all trees ultimately removed from the site to accommodate project CMR:343:98 Page 5 of 9 design or placement of the sound walls. In addition, thethree parking lot trees are required to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. The Planning Arborist also noted during his field visits to the site that the trees in the backyards of neighbors immediately adjacent to the sound wall on the northem property line will not be adversely impacted by that wall if a pier and grade beam foundation is used. The Planning Arborist has discussed the above with residents impacted by the sound wall construction and has verified that no significant impact will occur. Aesthetics: Overall the tennis facility will improve the appearance of the project site. The height of the sound walls does have, however, the potential to give the property a fortress-like appearance. The apparent height of the walls will be similar to that of freeway sound walls. This visual impact can be reduced to a less than significant level by breaking up the final design through articulation of the panels.with texture and banding. The panels can also be off-set slightly to break up the fiat vertical surface. Off-setting the panels and banding or other articulation of the panels have been included as mitigation measures in tile revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and in the conditions of approval for the use permit. Shadows: In addition to the visual impacts, the walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site will cast sh~idows over most of the yards and onto the actual structures of the adjacent prope~’ty for a majority of the year (see Attachment I - analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 2/13/98). Although this impact appears significant, it is not substantially greater than the impact of a standard six-foot-high fence in the same locations as the proposed ten-foot-high sound walls (see Attachment I - analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 4/9/98). There is no threshold or established standard for the amount of sunlight needed or expected in a residential backyard; however, the impact of the ten-foot’ high sound walls could be reduced by including panels of glass block or other transparent material on the upper two feet of the walls, creating "windows" for light. These window features could be included in either masonry or wood sound walls and could include detailing, such as fenestration or framing, to avoid a tacked-on appearance. Including "windows" at the top of the sound walls is not included in the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, since there is no environmental standard established against which to evaluate the impact. The "windows" have, however, been included as a condition of approval for the use permit. It should also be noted that the ten’foot-high sound wails will cast substantially less shadow on adjacent properties than the existing 25-foot-tall trees currently on the subject site and neighboring sites. Cost: A precise cost for the sound walls is difficult to calculate, since they have not been designed and are not scheduled to be designed until and unless the conditional use permit is approved. CMR:343:98 Page 6 of 9 Approximate estimates for concrete block and wooden walls indicate a large range in price. A concrete block sound wall can range in cost from $152,250 to $228,375 for 1,015 lineal feet of wall ($150.00 to $200.00/lineal foot). A wooden sound wall can range in cost from $97,440 to $182,700 for the same lineal footage ($96.00 to $180.00/lineal foot). The 1,015 lineal feet used in the above calculation assumes a sound wall along the eastern property line. If a fifth court is not constructed, that sound wall will not be required, which would reduce the lineal footage by 163 feet. The reduction in length of sound wall would result in a reduction in cost, ranging from $24,500 to $36,700 for a concrete block wall and $15,700 to $29,300 for a wooden wall, using the same cost per lineal foot as stated above. Summary_ Comments: Staff recommends approval of the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the above discussion. All environmental impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Staff further recommends that the three appeals be denied and that the use permit, with conditions be approved. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit for only four courts along with a passive park area, landscaping and parking lot improvements, with ten-foot-high sound wails (wood or masonry to be specified by the City Council) along the north property line and the western edge of the site. Construction of the fifth court at any time in the future would require a separate Use Permit and environmental analysis, including noise reports and aesthetic analyses. 2.Deny the Conditional Use Permit. o Direct that an Environmental Impact Report be completed for the originally proposed lower sound wall. RESOURCE IMPACT No impact to City resources is expected at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The applicant has orally expressed concern about the cost of either masonry or wooden sound walls and is requesting that the City Council consider paying for a portion of the sound walls. The City Council may want to discuss that possibility while discussing, action on the Conditional Use Permit or may want to defer that discussion to a later date. The City’S Comprehensive Plan policies pertinent to this application are Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element and Policy 11 and Program 35 of the Environmental Resources Element. Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element states that "privately-sponsored CMR:343:98 Page 7 of 9 community activities should be encouraged." The tennis facility will be operated by a private entity which will provide a community activity for a minimal yearly fee. The Environmental Resources Element states in Policy 11 that the City should "Ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise." Program 35 requires the City to "Analyze noise impacts of new projects." This section of the Comprehensive Plan also provides "Recommended standards for Daytime Noise Level, L10." For residential uses,, the acceptable indoor standards are 50 dBA and outdoor standards are 65dBA. The project will, with mitigation as specified in the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditions as proposed, meet the outdoor noise standard as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. TIME LINE If the staff recommendation is approved, CSI plans to begin construction al~er Architectural Review Board approval of the final design of the sound walls. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for the required 20-day public review period from July 17, 1998 through August 10, 1998. ATTACHMENTS B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. K. L. Vicinity/Location Map Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval October 29, 1997 Letter from R. Rodkin October 30, 1997 letter from R. Rodkin Chronology of Major Events o- 3009 Middlefield Road December 1, 1997 City Council minutes (excerpt for 3009 Middlefield Road only) Supplemental information from DEVA Designs, dated 2/13/98 Supplemental information from DEVA Designs, dated 4/9/98 Letter from the City’s CIP Design Consultant, dated March 10, 1998 Letters from John K. Abraham, dated July 24 and April 24, 1998 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:343:98 Page 8 of 9 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: HARRISON Assistant City Manager cc:Linda Stebbins Jensen, Director, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA94306 City of Palo Alto, Attn: Janet Freeland, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Marni Barnes, 846 Boyce Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Shirley Gee, 844 Prospect Avenue, Oakland, CA 94601 G. Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road #203, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Stephanie McClymonds, 740 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alt0, CA 94306 David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei-DheinTung, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 George Stern, P.O. Box 51590, Palo Alto, CA 94303 John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Edward L. Pack Associates, 13980 Blossom Hill Road, Ste. 100, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Illingworth and Rodkin, 85 Bolinas Road #11, Fairfax, CA 94930 CMR:343:98 Page 9 of 9 Attachment A PARK ~OSS UE f~oject’. 3009 Middlefield Road Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of Conditional Use Permit for a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) " RM-15 COV, PER STREET DRIV| Attachment B ’ ENVIRONMENTA CHECKLIST FORM -° t Project Title:Tennis Center (Former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center) Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator (650) 329-2561 Project Location:3009 Middlefield.Road, Palo Alto, CA Application Number(s):96-UP-1, 98-EIA-6 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Community Skating Inc. (Linda Jensen), 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 General Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facilities Zoning:Public Facilities (PF) Description of the Project: Community Skating Inc., operators of the Winterlodge skating facility, propose to develop the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis facility for use as a tennis facility, The development includes re-orientation of two existing tennis courts, resurfacing of two existing courts, construction of one additional court and construction of a passive park area, restroom facilities, and related site improvements including additional parking and parking area landscaping. The project would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would include resurfacing the four existing tennis courts, parking lot improvements, landscaping in the passive park area and construction of restroom facilities. Phase two would include construction of the fifth tennis court. The project requires a conditional use permit for operation of an outdoor recreation service (tennis facility), and Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval for the proposed site improvements. P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 10. 11. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site currently contains four tennis courts, in poor but functional condition. In addition, the site contains an area that previously contained a swimming pool, which has been removed. The site abuts a channelized section of Matadero Creek. The front (south) property line abuts the Winterlodge skating facility and an automotive service station. Single-family houses border the property’s north and west property lines and a multiple-family condominium complex borders the east property line. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Santa Clara Valley Water District will require the applicant to obtain permits for construction within 50 feet of the creek bank and for any change in storm drainage affecting existing outfalls into the creek. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK.IS T FORM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation X X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems X Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.lg ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. XI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. "l~oj ec(t- 151anner Date Director of Planning & Community Environment Date S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as omsite, cumulative as well as project-lever, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 6) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D)~ Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate ir~to the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. .~ 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. S:\Dlan\Dladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.~ g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Impact a) b) c) d) e) b) c) a) b) c} d) e) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? 1 1 1,5,6 1,6 Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 7 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 X x X Unique geologic or physical features? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S-\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Then Significant Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? c)XDischarge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? 7,8(B- 7) 7,8(B- 7) 7,8(B- 7) d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 7,8 X body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 7,8 X movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)7,8 XChange in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater qualitY through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? g) h) j)Alteration of wetlands in any way? 7,8 7,8 5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Exposesensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? 8(B-5) 9 9,19 ,X X X X X X X S \Dlan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 6, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? c) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,1 O, 18 xl X X X X X X X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d} Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 6,8(B- 12) 6,8(B- 12) 6,8(B- 12) 6,8(B- 12) 6,8(B- 12) X X X X X ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?!11! S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sour=ss Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Loss Than Significant Impact b) c) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 11 11 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:, a) b) c) d) e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 5,8(B- 8,B-9) 5,8,( B-8,B- 9)1 5 St 8 (B-8 B-9), 15 X X X X X X Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,5,12 X grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?8(B-X 4),16, 20,21 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?8(B-X 4), 20,21 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?12 X b) Police protection?14 X c) Schools?5 X S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services? 13 5 X 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local Or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g e) 5 5 5 5,13 5 5 5,6 5161 17,19 22,23 5,6 X X 6,8 (B-14) 6,8 (B-14) 6,8 (B-13) 6,8 (B-14) 6,8 (B-14) X X X X X X X X X X X X lssues and Supporting Information Sources ’ Potentially Signifioant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 5,6 X or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?5,6 X~ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)19 X b) c) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) 19 19 X X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will 19 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly o.r indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ~ (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures, based on the earlier analysis. S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County ofMendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1 990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Pa!o alto Comprehensive Plan 1 980-1 995, Land Use map (1 981-1 995), land use element (1 981 ), Urban Design element (1981) and Environmental Resources Element (1981). 2 Required compliance with Uniform Building Code standards for seismic safety. 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report, 1 994. 4 Public Facilities (PF) Zone District Regulations (Section 18.32 Palo Alto Municipal Code) 5 Review of plans and specifications submitted with application. 6 Field investigations/site visits 7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 980-1995; Environmental Resources Element. 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-4, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12, B-!3 and B-14, 1994. 9 Palo alto Comprehensive’ Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Report, pages 1 5-30; 1994. 10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1 980-1 995, Transportation Element; 1 981 11 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 50-61, 1981. 12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, written comments on application; 4/10/96. 13 City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works, written comments on application; 4/16/96. 14 City of Palo Alto Police Department, written comments on application; 4/9/96 and 4/30/96. 1 5 City of Palo Alto Hazardous Materials Division, written comments on application; 4/9/96. 16 Acoustical Analysis prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, inc. For the proposed project; 4/8/96. 17 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1 995, Urban Design Element; 1981 S\,:,lan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Signifioant Issues Potentially Signifioant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 18 Memorandum from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division; July 22, 1 996 1 9 Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items 1-18 and 20-23. 20 Supplemental Acoustical Analyses prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.; 4/8/96, 1/1 5/97, and 6/12/97 21 Acoustical Analyses prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin Inc.; 4/16/97, 6/12/97, 10/29/97, and 10/30/97. 22 Supplemental information provided by DEVA Designs (for CSI Inc.), regarding air movement, shadow patterns and visual impacts; 2/13/98 and 4/9/98. 23 Letter from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey; 3/10/98 S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 3 (b,c, g) 4 (a,b, C, d) Geologic Problems. The site is located in a seismically active area which is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land is possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Mitiqation: None required. Water. The project site is located in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. The 100 year flood zone is contained within the banks of Matadero Creek, but the site is within the 500 year flood zone. During construction activities, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to Matadero Creek and the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris are a source of this pollution. With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be a significant impact and by project completion, there will be a minimal amount of additional runoff from the site because of a slight increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing use. The standard conditions of approval will~ require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate.best management practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Mitiqation: None required. S:\pian\pladiv\eia\3OOgr~nd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 5 (a,c) Air Quality. The sound walls required as mitigation for potential noise impacts will have potentially significant impacts on air movement unless mitigated (see discussion under 10 (a), NOise, below for further detail on potential noise impacts and mitigation). The ten foot high wall along the northern property line will create updrafts and breezes on adjacent residential properties that are not currently experienced on those sites. A stepped screen of plant material on the tennis facility side of the wall will substantially reduce the updrafts and breezes. ]he breezes and updrafts created by the ten foot high wall along the western edge of the site will not impact residences on the opposite side of Matadero Creek because the breezes and drafts will dissipate prior to reaching those properties. The updrafts and breezes created by an eight foot high wall on the eastern property line, if Phase Two is constructed, will be mitigated by the existing plant materials on each side of the wall. The project would also result in temporary dust emissions during grading and other construction activities. The standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to a less than significant level. The standard conditions of project approval will require that the following dust control measures be employed: 1) Exposed earth surfaces be watered, increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. A condition of project approval will also require the sound walls along the north property line and western edge of the site to be constructed before tl~e rest of the Phase One improvements so that dust and noise impacts on neighboring properties will be minimized during construction. All mitigation measures listed below will also be incorporated as conditions of use permit approval for the proposed project. Mitiqation: 5.(a) 1. 5.(a) 2. A stepped screen of plant material shall be planted and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" shall consist of two rows of plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half the height of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall itself shall grow . to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). The final selection of plant material for the "green screen" shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist and by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). 5.(a) 3.The screen shall be Iocated in a manner consistent with the Conceptual plans submitted byDEVA Designs, dated 2/13/98, on file in the office of the City of Palo AIt~ Planning Division. S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcas Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 6 (a,d) Transportation/Circulation. The total number of new trips for the five-court facility.will be 140 daily weekday trips, with 12 occuring during the ev~ening peak hour and a maximum of 160 new trips on Sundays. The new fifth tennis court will account for 33 of the 140 new daily weekday trips, three of the 12 new evening peak hour trips and 38 of the 160 new trips on Sunday.The Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment reviewed the project and determined that the additional trips could be absorbed by the surrounding street network and would not be noticeable to nearby residents or create a significant impact. The proposed tennis facility and the existing skating facility, which shares the project site, require a total of 89 on-site parking spaces, seven of which are required for the tennis facility. With the addition of 30 pa.rking spaces at the front of the site, as required by the conditional use permit for the skating facility expansion, the number of on-site parking spaces totals 98. The proposed parking facilities would be adequate to accommodate the tennis and skating facilities without significant impact on street parking or other parking facilities in the area provided that special events are not held simultaneously for both the Winterlodge and the tennis facility. The mitigation measure below prohibits special events from occurring simultaneously for both facilities. This mitigation measure will also become a condition of use permit approval Mit;iqation: 6.(d)4.To ensure that there is sufficient parking on-site, the tennis facility shall not hold special events or have tournament play at the same time special events are being held at the Winterlodge. S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially . Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 7 (a)Biological Resources. No endangered, threatened, or rare animal, insect or plant species have been identified on the project site. The project arborist’s report indicates that there are 1 8 existing trees located on the project site. The applicant intends to remove a total of ten of these existing trees, None of the trees proposed for removal are protected by the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation and Maintenance Ordinance, however all ten trees are mature landscape features on the site. Five trees would be removed because of conflict with the project design or the health of adjacent trees. Of these five trees, two are in poor condition, two are in fair condition and one is in good condition. An additional five trees may need to be removed to accommodate the required sound walls on the site (see discussion under lO(a) Noise below for further detail on potential noise impacts and mitigation). Two of these five trees are Cedrus deodora located along the western edge of the site in the parking area and are in good condition. Two Of the five trees are Cupressus sempervirens located along the norhern property line and are in fair condition. The fifth of these five trees is an Ulmus parvifolia located along the eastern property line and is in fair condition. As noted in discussion 10 (a), Noise, below, the required sound walls on the site will be equally effective in mitigating noise impacts whether constructed of wood or masonry materials. Both types of materials will achieve the same level of acoustical attenuation. Sound walls of either material can be constructed using a pier and post beam construction technique. The supporting posts can be hand-dug to avoid root zones, which will result in less potential impact on existing trees. Using this type of construction technique may result in the retention of some of the trees that would need to be removed if different construction techniques were used. Wooden walls will, however, have less impact on the surrounding micro-climate because they will not retain or reflect as much heat as masonry walls and will not change surrounding air flow as noticeably. In addition to the above trees, the Department of Public Works Arborist recommends removal of three existing parking lot trees because of their "brittle nature", and replacement with a suitable parking lot species. The applicant proposes to plant five new trees, groundcover and shrubbery in the passive park area at the rear of the project site. The City generally uses a 2:1 replacement ratio for all trees removed from a project site. The number of trees removed from this site will be partially dependent upon the construction technique used to build the required sound walls. The number, species and location of replacement trees will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division Arborist as well as by the ARB. In addition, the applicant will be required to replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species subject to review and approval of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. Mitigation: 7.(a)5.The applicant shall replace all trees removed to accommodate the design of the project or the required sound walls at the edges of the site. A general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline ¯ for tree replacement. S\p]an\p]adiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.lg .IIssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 7 (a) (con) 7.(a) 6. 7.(a) 7. The applicant shall replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of all required replacement trees shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Palo alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARE}. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Signifioant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Loss Then Significant Impaot Noise. The eight acoustical analyses prepared for this project (sources 16, 20, and 21) compare the proposed tennis facility use to the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance for uses on public property adjacent to residential properties (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). The ordinance sets a noise limit of 15 dB above the existing ambient condition at each site property line. The ambient is defined as the lowest sound level repeating during a six minute period, but not less than 40 dBA. This standard was used as the threshold to determine significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. The ambient noise levels at the property lines were measured and found to be 41dBA. Theacoustical analysis, dated October 29, 1997, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., the acoustical consultant hired by the City of Palo Alto, and concurred with by the project sponsor’s acoustical consultant, Edward L. Pack Associates, recommends: construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the northern property line; a ten foot high sound wall along the western edge of the site, at the edge of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement; and either a fourteen foot acoustical barrier along the eastern property line or a ten foot high acoustical barrier along the eastern edge of court number 5. The City’s acoustical consultant confirmed that a sound wall would not be required along the eastern property line or along the edge of the fifth court if the fifth tennis court is not built. A facility with four tennis courts, as shown on the applicant’s proposed development plan, requires sound walls only along the north property line and western edge of the site. During discussions at City Council meetings, it was suggested that an eight foot high sound wall could be located along the eastern property line if the fifth court was constructed. The acoustical analysts noted that exceedence of noise levels along the eastern property line could be dependent upon the age and comparative strength of the players on court number 5, which is located closest to the eastern property line. The final analysis, dated October 30, 1997 recommended continued monitoring of the use of the fifth tennis court, if it is built, to determine if there is substantial exceedance of the noise ordinance as a result of play on that court. In the event that there are continued violations, operational restrictions could be placed upon use of the fifth court, such as limiting play to players under a specific age, or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court could be required such as construction of a sound wall. Since the Construction of the fifth court is not anticipated until Phase Two of the project, mitigation measures associated with that court are listed below under Phase Two Mitigation. The final acoustical analysis, dated October 30, 1997 recommends any of the following materials as equally effective for acoustical attenuation: masonry panels, masonry block, wood or concrete panels. These materials constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 Ibs. per square foot will bring noise levels down to 56 dBA, which meets noise ordinance standards. Mitiqation: Phase One Mitigation: 10.(a) 8.The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the northern property line. 10.(a) 9.The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound S:\plan\~ladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues IPotentiallyI Less Than Significant ! Significant Unless Irnpaat Mitigation Incorporated lO(a)Mitigation (contd.): wall along the western edge of the site, along the border of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. 10.(a) 10. Any of the following materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls: masonry panels; masonry block; wood; or concrete panels. All sound walls shall be constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 Ibs. per square foot. 10.(a) 11.Final design of Phase One sound walls shaft be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and shall use pier and grade beam construction techniques for the footings and foundations. Phase Two Mitigation: 10.(a) 12.If a fifth court is constructed on the site, the operator of the facility shaft construct an eight foot high air tight acoustical sound waft along the eastern property line using the same materials, design and construction technique as used for the sound wafts on the north property line and western edge of the site. 10.(a) 13.The operator of the tennis facility shall monitor noise levels at a distance of 25 feet from the eastern property line for the first year of operation after construction of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound wall. Acoustical measurements shall be taken 25 feet from the eastern property line 12 times a year which shaft include, as a minimum, monitoring during tournaments, on Saturdays or during other times when increased activity exists. These readings shall be conducted on an unannounced basis and shall be funded by the operator of the facility. Results of these readings shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. At anytime during or after the first year of operation, after construction of the fifth tennis court and 8 foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall have authority to order independent noise monitoring at the applicant’s expense. 10.(a) 14.If any violation of noise ordinance standards occurs during the first year of operation after construction of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound waft, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule a use permit hearing for the project in order to consider either operational restrictions on the use of the fifth court or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court. If a noise ordinance violation is shown, the Zoning Administrator shall order the use permit amended to require construction of the 14 foot wall along the eastern edge of the property line unless the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that an alternative noise mitigation will be effective. The 14 foot height may be achieved by constructing a six foot extension of a similar material to the other sound walls on the site onto the eight foot high sound waft. 10.(a)15.Final design of a sound wall constructed as part of Phase Two, and modifications made to the wall during, or immediately after, the first year of operation of Phase Two, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board.. S: plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUI’GeS Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signifioant Impact 1 1 Public Services. (d) Currently, maintenance of the existing tennis courts is the responsibility of the City of Palo Alto. The tennis facility is in a state of disrepair; all courts need to be resurfaced, the existing fencing needs repair, and hardware needs to be replaced. If the facility is leased to the- applicant, the initial repair work and continual maintenance will become the applicant’s responsibility. Mitiqation: None required. 12 (e) Utilities and Service Systems. In addition to the proposed upgrades to tennis facilities and construction of a new passive park area, the applicant proposes to regrade the site and construct a new storm water drainage system which would resolve a long-standing drainage problem on the subject Site. The applicant will be required to obtain approval of the grading and drainage plan from the Santa Clara Valley Water district as well as the City’s Public Works Department. Mitiqat;ion: None required. S \plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source~Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact 13 (b,c) 15 (a,b) Aesthetics. Overall, the proposed tennis facility will improve the appearance of the project site. The applicant intends to develop a passive park facility on the site of the abandoned pool and gym. The tennis courts will be reoriented and resurfaced, existing light poles and fixtures will be removed and perimeter landscaping and the parking area will be upgraded. The ten foot high sound walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site as well as the eight foot high wall along the eastern property line, should Phase Two be constructed, have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts on the adjacent residential properties. The height of the walls has the potential to result in a fortress-like appearance to the property. As the walls will be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the walls will be similar to that of freeway sound walls. The visual impact can be reduced to a less than significant level by breaking-up the final design through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The panels could also be off-set slightly to break-up the flat vertical surface. In addition to the visual impacts, the walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site will caste shadows over most of the yards and onto the actual structures of the adjacent property for a majority of the year (see analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 2/13/98). Although this impact appears significant, it is not substantially greater than the impact of a standard six foot high fence in the same location as the required ten foot high sound walls (see analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 4/9/98). There is no threshold or established standard for the amount of sunlight needed or expected in a residential backyard, however, the impact of the ten foot high sound walls could be reduced by including panels of glass block or other transparent material on the upper two feet of the walls, creating "windows" for light. The design of these panels could include detailing, such as fenestration or framing to avoid a tacked-on appearance. The use of glass block or other transparent material could be made a condition of use permit approval for the project. Mitigation: 13.(b)16.The panels of all sound walls on the site shall be broken-up through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The panels may be off-set to break-up the flat vertical surface. 13.(b)17. Recreation. The final design of the sound walls, and other walls on the site, shall be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. The review shall occur by the Board and shall not be delegated to planning division staff. The proposed tennis facility will increase recreational opportunities by improving existing tennis courts, which are almost unplayable in their current condition, and by adding one additional tennis court and passive park area. Mitiqation: None required. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED (_Y)- ~ ~ q ~ , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS ~ ~(~l~~ ~r~or(;~.l#-j3~..~. ,PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signatu e~Date. S\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Mitigation Measures for 3009 Middlefield Road Tennis Court Facility on the Former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center Site July 20, 1998 Phase One Mitigation 5.(a) 1. 5.(a) 2. A stepped screen of plant material shall be planted and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "g[een screen" shall consist of two rows of plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half the height of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall itself shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). The final selection of plant material for the "green screen" shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist and by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). 5.(a) 3.The screen shall be located in a manner consistent with the Conceptual plans submitted by DEVA Designs, dated 2/13/98, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. 6.(d) 4.To ensure that there is sufficient parking on-site, the tennis facility shall not hold special events or have tournament play at the same time special events are being held at the Winterlodge. 7.(a) 5. 7.(a) 6. 7.(a) 7. 10.(a) 8. The applicant shall replace all trees removed to accommodate the design of the project or the required sound walls at the edges of the site. A general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline for tree replacement. The applicant shall replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of all required replacement trees shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the northern property line. lO.(a) 9.The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the western edge of the site, along the border of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. 10,(a) 10,Any of the following materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls: masonry panels; masonry block; wood; or concrete panels. All sound walls shall be constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 Ibs. per square foot. lO.(a) 1 1 The Architectural review Board shall review and approve the final design of the Phase One sound walls. The design of these sound walls shall incorporate a pier and grade beam construction technique for the footings and foundations. 13.(b) 15.The panels of all sound walls on the site shall be broken-up through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The panels may be off-set to break-up the flat vertical surface. 13.(b) 16.The final design of the sound walls, and other walls on the site, shall be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. The review shall occur by the Board and shall not be delegated to planning division staff. Phase Two Mitigation lO.(a) 12 If a fifth court is constructed on the site, the operator of the facility shall construct an 8 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the eastern property line using the same materials, design and construction technique as used for the sound walls on the north property line and the western edge of the site. lO.(a) 13. 10.(a) 14. 10.(a) 15. The operator of the tennis facility shall monitor noise levels at a distance of 25 feet from the eastern property line for the first year of operation after construction of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound waft. Acoustical measurements shaft be taken 25 feet from the eastern property line 12 times a year which shaft include, as a minimum, monitoring during tournaments, on Saturdays and during other times when increased activity exists. These readings shall be conducted on an unannounced basis and shall be funded by the operator of the facility. Results of these.readings shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. At anytime during or after the first year of operation, after construction of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall have authority to order independent noise monitoring at the applicant’s expense. If any violation of noise ordinance standards occurs during the first year of operation after construction of the fifth.tennis court, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule a use permit hearing for the project in order to consider either operational restrictions on the use of the fifth court or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court. If a noise ordinance violation is shown, the Zoning Administrator shall order the use permit amended to require construction of the 14 foot wall along the eastern edge of the property line unless the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that an alternative noise mitigation will be effective. The 14 foot height may be achieved by constructing a six foot extension of a similar material to the other sound walls on the site onto the eight foot high sound wall. Final design of a sound wall constructed as part of Phase Two, and modifications made to the wall during, or immediately after, the first year of operation of Phase Two, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Attachment C DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-1 The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that as conditioned below the tennis facility will have minimal impact on surrounding properties regarding noise, traffic, parking, aesthetics and use. The plans received on April 2, 1996, show a fifth tennis court approximately 100 feet from the east property line adjacent to the condominiums. This revised location is significantly further from the east property line than shown in the schematic drawings submitted with the conceptual proposal and helps reduce the noise impact from that court. The noise analysis submitted with the application verifies that with mitigation as attached below, the noise impact will be within allowable limits. The parking on the site meets parking requirements as outlined in Section 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The additional vehicle trips generated bythe refurbished tennis facility can be accommodated on the existing street network without improvements to that network. The resurfaced courts, park area and additional landscaping throughout the site will all contribute to the improved visual impact of the site and the conditions limiting the hours of use and the penalties attached to violations of those conditions will reduce the impact of the overall use on the surrounding area; and ’ The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that privately sponsored community activities should be encouraged. The tennis facility will be operated by a private entity which will provide a community activity for a minimal yearly fee. In addition, Policy 11 of the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that compliance with existing noise laws shall be ensured and that residents should be protected from unnecessary noise. The noise analysis submitted by the applicant’s acoustical consultant and the conditions of project approval ensure that all applicable noise standards will be met by the project. The project meets all parking, landscaping and noise requirements of the Municipal Code and Section 18.32.040 of the Code allows outdoor recreational facilities in the Public Facilities zone district with a Conditional Use Permit. 3009 Middlefield Road (96-UP-I)August 10, 1998 Page 1 Attachment D DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-1 Note: Words and conditions in italics are recommended by the Planning Commission. Words and conditions in italics and underlined are recommended by Planning staff. Phase 1: Phase One of the project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans received April 2, 1996, on file in the Planning Division office and final plans as approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), except as modified by the conditions listed below. Any violation of the approved ARB plans shall be considered a violation of this use permit. The hours of operation for the tennis facility shall be 8:00 a.m. to dark. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to dark on Sundays and holidays. The hours of operation shall be clearly posted at the entry gate to the facility and at all individual entrances to the five tennis courts. An individual user of the facility who violates the hours of operation more than twice shallhave their key privileges revoked. It is the responsibility of the operator of the tennis facility to clearly document use of the facility and track any violations of the hours of operation. The methods used to track such violations shall be designed by the operator of the facility and submitted to the Palo Alto Zoning Administrator for approval prior to commencement of operations. .... :’-appli~ .......’ of "~--’ ....:~ ,-__:,: ....t,k,, bc ,,,,,,,Me The cant shall appoint a neighborhood liaison who may be contacted by neighbors of the project during all business hours and special events to address neighborhood concerns regarding noise or other disturbances at the facility. The liaison shah be provided the authoriW, to correct any violation of the use permit conditions and to make eve~, effort to avoid disturbances to the ne@hbors. During non-business hours, a phone number shall be made available so that neighbors disturbed by noise at the facility may call and leave a message detailing the complaint. This phone number shall be clearly posted on all signs listing the hours of operation for the facility. The number shall also be kept on file at the tennis facility and in the City of Paio Alto Planning Division and shall be made available by the operators of the tennis facility to any interested party upon S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\conds2.1g August 10, 1998 Page 1 request. Neighbors disturbed by noise during business and non-business hours may also call the Palo Alto Police Department with complaints. Lights shall not be allowed on the courts at any time. Any existing light fixtures on the courts at the time of this approval shall be removed when renovation of the facility commences. The bicycle racks shall be relocated to an area immediately inside the main gates to the tennis facility. The revised location shall be shown on the final landscape plan and shall be reviewed by the ARB and the Transportation Planning Division staff. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent propertiesare not altered (per Section 16.28.270 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). 10.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 11.The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 12.The project is located within 50 feet of a creek which is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). A permit must be obtained from SCVWD and a copy provided to the City of Palo Alto. 13.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. 14.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public works Department shall monitor BMP’s .with respect to the developer’s construction S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\conds2,1g August i0, 1998 Page 2 activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris ( soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. 15.The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB and shall be as accessible as possible. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The developer shall call USA at (800) 642-2444 to mark any underground electric facility. Recycling containers shall be provided in the picnic area and shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB. Tree protection methods to be used during construction shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Arborist and the ARB. The project shall be in compliance with all handicapped access standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspections Division. Fire Department access to the site shall be provided. A key box (Knox) shall be provided in an accessible location which shall contain keys to access the site in an emergency. Knox box applications can be obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Prevention Bureau. 21.All conditions of approval as stated on the attached list from the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department - Water - Gas - Wastewater Engineering- shall be implemented (see attachment). 22. 23. The applicant shall schedule regular meetings with the neighborhood to be hem on- site on next to the site or in the neighborhood,, a minimum of one every six months, to review the status of compliance with the terms of the use permit, the status of noise disturbance control and the status of neighborhood relations. Advance notice of these meetings will be provided to the Zoning Administrator in order to allow attendance by a City representative although a City representative is not required to attend and shall not be expected to facilitate the meetings. Following the first year of semiannual meetings, the meetings may be held once yearly, with the consent of the neighbors. A second lock shall be added to all entry and exit gates and a tennis facility staff person shall be present to close the facility every night. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\conds2.1g August 10, 1998 Page 3 24. 26. The pertinent requirements of Chapter 9. I0, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall be enforced at all times. ’ A stepped screen of plant material shall be planted and maintained by the tennis faeili_ty operator on the tennis faeili~, side of the sound wall along the northern proper~, line. The "green screen" shall consist of two rows of plant material. The row closest to the tennis facili~, shall grow to be approximately half the he~ht of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall itself shal!grow to be approximately eigb_tht feet high (two feet below the top qf the wall.). The final selection qf plant material for the "green screen" shall be reviewed and approved by the Cir. of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist and by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The screen shall be located in a manner consistent with the Conceptual plans submitted by DEVA Designs, dated 2/13/98. on file in the office of the Cir. of Palo Alto Planning Division... The applicant shall replace a all trees removed to accommodate the design of the project or the required sound walls at the edges of the site. A general ratio of 2: l shall be used as a guideline for tree replacement. 29..~ 30_~ 31.__,. 32__~. The. applicant shall replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of all required replacement trees shall be subject to the review and approval of the Ci.ty of Palo Alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. The operator of the tennis facili.ty shall construct a. 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wailalong the northern proper~, line. The operator qf the tennis faeili.ty shall construct a l O foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the western edge .of the site, along the’border of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. 33__~. 34___~ Any qf the_following materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls." masons, panels," masons, block," wood," or concrete panels. All sound walls shall be constructed in an air tight.fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbs. per square foot. Final design of all sound walls shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\conds2.1g August 10, 1998 Page 4 37.._~ 38__~. 40__~. The panels of all sound walls on the site shall be broken-up through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The panels may be off-set to break-up the flat vertical surface. The final design of the sound walls, and other walls on the site, shall be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. The review shall occur by the Board and shall not be delegated to planning division staff The Code Enforcement section qf the Building,,Inspection division of the Planning Department shall conduct a site visit once eve~. two years to monitor,,,maintenance of the, sound walls on site. The sound walls shall have glass block or other transparent material designed into the top two feet of the walls to allow sunlight to penetrate the walls. The sound walls along the north proper.ty line and,western edge qf the site shall be constructed prior to the commencement of otherPhase One site improvements. To ensure that there is sufficient parking on-site, the tennis faeili.ty shall not hold special events or have tournament play at the same time special events are being held at the Winterlod~e Phase 41. 2: Phase Two of the project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans received April 2, 1996, on file in the Planning Division office and final plans as approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), except as modified by the conditions listed below. 42.Tennis court #5 shall be moved seven feet closer to the existing Winterlodge building on the adjacent site. The restrooms on the site shall be moved to a location between courts 3 and 5. 44. 45. If a fifih court is constructed on the site, the operator of the facility shall construct an 8foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the eastern property line using the same materials design and construction technique as used for the sound walls on the north property line and the western edge of the site. The sound wall along the eastern property line shall be constructed prior to the construction of other Phase 2 site improvements. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\conds2.1g August 10, 1998 Page 5 47__~. 48. The operator of the tennis facility shall monitor noise levels at the eastern proper~. line for the .first year of operation ql2er construction qf the _~fth tennis court. Acoustical measurements shall be taken at the eastern proper~, line 12 times a year which shall include, at a minimum, monitoring during tournament, on Saturdays and during other times when increased activity exists. These readings shall be conducted on an unannounced basis and shall be funded by the operator of the facility. Results of these readings shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. At anytime during or after the first year qf operation, after construction of the fiflh tennis court and eight foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall have authority to order independent noise monitoring at the applicant’s expense. If any violation of noise ordinance standards occurs, during the first year of operation q~qer construction of the fiflh tennis court and eight foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule a use permit hearing for the project in’order to consider either operational restrictions on the use of the fiflh court or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fiflh court. If a noise ordinance violation is shown, the Zoning Administrator shall order this use permit amended to require construction of the 14 foot wall along the eastern edge of the property line unless the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that an alternative noise mitigation will be effective. The 14foot height may be achieved by constructing a six foot extension of a similar material to the other sound walls on the site onto the eight foot high sound wall. Final design of a sound wall constructed as part of Phase Two, and modifications made to the wall during, or immediately after, the first year of operation of Phase Two, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\conds2,1g August 10, 1998 Page 6 Acoustics ¯ Air Quality Attachment E October 29, 1997 Ron Anderson City of PMo Alto City Council P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SUB3ECT: 3009 Middlefield -- Mediation Effort Dear Mr. Anderson: I am writing th~s letter to summarize the comments that I .made at the last mediation meeting and to respond to a question from Wei Wang reg~rdin£ the method we used to calculate the effectiveness of sound barriers. Before designing mitigation m~ure% one must Kave a s~ of ~tssumptions !n place regarding the allowable noise leveL, the location and i¢v1 of the source of the noise, and the possible locations for the noise barriers. With.respect to the Noise Ordinnnce, the City determined that the Ordit~_nce would ,4low an instamane~us, rel~itive noise level 0-,,~t,,,) of" 15 d~BA al:~ve the ambient. Based on mea~uremems by JeffPaek, the lmabient is assumed to be 41 dBA. The dlow~tble maximum rep~itive nobe level would therefore be 56 dBA. I recommend that the noi~ ordinance be enforced in the center of the rear yards of’the adjacent residences or on the balconies of the adjacent condominiun~. Using data developed ’by Vincent Salmon and JeffPack, I determined that a sound level of 76 d.BA would be appropriate for noise ordinance analysis. This level is the tenth percentile tielow the top ofthe ~atbtical distribution of’noi.~ leveb which.were supplied in their reports (2 dBA below the loudest measured level). This would be represemative of the noise generated by a serve The height of the serve is assumed to be 9 feet above the ground The serves are assumed to be struck at the service line in Court 3 for the ~,nalysis to the west and in Court 5 for the tmalyses to the novlh l~t~d ea~t. 1 have enclosed bamer calculations. Calculation Sheets 1 and 2 surrmmrize calculatior~s to the north. The barrier is a~sumed to be located at the north property line. C~Jculatlons show the barrier must be 9 to 10 feet high in order to reduce noise to 56 dl3A L,~,..:,,~ We, therefore, 85 Bollnas Road, #11 . Fairfex, Calif~rnle 94930 ¯ (4~5) 459-5507 . FAX (415) 459-6448 0,1"[-2’.=~- ~ 997 ~5:24 4154_%9~448 95::F’. lq.on Anderson "’" October 29, 1997 Page 2 recommend a lO-foo¢ barrier at lhe north ]:n-openy line. Calculations to the west are shown on page :3. Ba.rrien were tested on e~ch aide of’the cr~k A 10-foot barrier is necessary alons; the Wintea’lodge aide of the creek and an B-foot barri~ is necessa.r5’ along ~he neighbors’ side of the creek. Th0 problem to the earl with the condo,’rfinium~ iz somewhat different because it is a multi-story structure. The unmitigated noise levet is predicted to be 61 dBA at the b~conie~ of the condomirfiums. Assuming ambient noise levels r,r~ simil.~" at the condominium,% lhen 5 dBA of additiona! noi_~e reduction is required. Assuming a se~zond-~ory receptor 14 fet~ above the ground, a 14-foo1 bt..rrier is nece~sa.,y at the property line. An alter-native would be to construct a l O-foot high bm’rier at the east ed,.qe of Court 5. Bin-tier heights mad locations ~e shown on the enclo~d figure. The analysis is based on in.formation provided on plarts ~d from ¢he re~7:~-vtive parties. To be effective, the b~trrier must be r, olid, have a minimum surface weight of 3 lbs./fi,~ and be construcled airtight over the f~,ee 0fthe btu-rier ~d at the bare of the barrier. Suitable materials would ~c~ude m~on.r’y p~nel~, concrete pm’~el~, rr~m’y block, or wt~:)d, k~’properly detailed. We gen~-~y reetrmmend a post-aad-plywood p~ael coastruction for wood bamers. An ~dtemafive alon~ the edge of Court 5 would b¢ to construct a plexisl~s barrier or a combination of.a solid w~ll ~upporting a plexiglms b~rier above so th,,,,-t activ’itJe~ on the courts could be viewed from the park. This concludes the summary.of my an~ty~es. Uaforrunately, I ~ no~ able Io attend the meeting on October 3 ~",.h du~ to illness but will be availrd~ ~er that to maswer ~uy questions. Sinc~ely your% I’,ich~d B. Kodld~ PE Enclosures (97-025) OC’I’- [-;~D - 19’37 I..,. ~..,415-’I 5’96,-q 4 ~,952,F P. I / O’C] -2Si- 19_q? 15:26 -11 ~>4.>~,44.~,9->,.F’. 0’ZT-29-:1.99’7 15:26 41S459644B 96X F’. 0’.-, I "" I 0CT-29-1997" 15:27 ..... 95%F’. 0,’ I. .,! l 154596448 ¯ "/ ; Attachment F Acoustics ¯ Air Ouality ~Wll/ MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: t Ron AndersonlCity Council/City of Palo Alto Richard B. Rodkin, PE October 30, 1997 3009 l~iddlerield -- Mediation Effort I am writing this memo in response to a letter received today from Jeff Pack of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. and a telephone conversation with Mr. Pack. He conducted additional noise measurements of tennis play of the lyl:,e that would be representative, in his opinion, of activities that would occur at Winterlodge. The new data would support assuming a lower noise level for the noise of tennis play. "His analysis confirmed that approximately a 9-foot source height would be appropriate for an adult serving. Using. his data, he proposes a 9- foot barrier at an alternative location adjacent to the courts along the west property line, a 10-foot barrier adjacent to the courts along the north property line, and no barrier along the east side of Court 5. While his data increa.r, es nay comfort level regarding likely conformance with the noise ordinance, I hesitate to discount the data that Dr. Salmon has gathered. I suggest constructing a 10-foot barrier around the west, north .and east court boundaries as an alternativ.e (Figure 1). The 10-foot barrier along the north property boundary, we concur, is the minimum neces.sary. The 10-foot barrier along the west property boundary (l:foot higher than Mr. Pack recommends) would provide a definite break in the line-of-sight between a person serving and a person standing in the rear yard. While Mr. Pack’s data indicates that the ordinance limits would be met at the condominiums with no mitigation along the east side of the courts, only a slight excursion above his predicted worst case levels would cause an exceedance. It would, therefore, be prudent to continue the noise mitigation aldng the east edge or" the proposed Court 5, as we previously recommended. RBR gfl F.n¢losure (97-025) 85 Bollnas Road, #11 ¯Feirlax, Ct~llfornla 94930 ¯(415) 459.5507 ¯FAX (415)459-644 .~T-3~- 1 .cJ97 15:29 415459g_,44~c_]G’/.P. { ATTACHMENT G Chronology. of Ma_ior Events -- 3009 Middlefield Road The following chronology summarizes the major events that have occurred in association with this project. January 8, 1996 February 8, 1996 April 8, 1996 Mid-April 1996 May 31, 1996 June, July, August 1996 August 15, 1996 August 26, 1996 November 7, 1996 November 13, 1996 November 13, 1996 December 31, 1996 January 8, 1997 January15,1997 January21,1997 January22,1997 Januau, 23,1997 CSI applied for Conditional Use Permit Notice of Incomplete Application sent to CSI Original Edward L. Pack Associates Acoustical Analysis submitted by CSI Application determined to be complete Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment Zoning Administrator Hearings Zoning Administrator approval of application Three appeals of ZA approval from surrounding neighborhood groups Acoustical report submitted by Vincent Salmon, acoustical consultant retained by two of the appellants Letter submitted by Edward Pack Associates supplementing April 8, 1996 analysis First Planning Commission hearing held on the appeals, public testimony taken, hearing continued to January 29, 1997 so that the two acoustical consultants could meet and reach a solution agreeable to appellants and applicants Letter from J. Abrahams, one of the three appellants providing comments on acoustical reports and a second report from V. Salmon Letter from W. Wang, one of the three appellants providing comments on acoustical reports and a third report from V. Salmon Edward Pack Associates submits an addendum to original acoustical report. Addendum summarizes the results of the meeting between the two consultants Response from J. Abrahams to Pack addendum Response from W. Wang to Pack addendum Response from V. Salmon to Pack addendum S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\3009schd.lg January 29, 1997 Aptil16,1997 April 25, 1997 April 30, 1997 June 4,1997 June 12, 1997 July 2, 1997 July 2,1997 July 12,1997 July 30, 1997 Continued Planning Commission hearing. Public testimony taken, discrepancies between reports and consultant opinions discussed, hearing continued to April 30, 1997 so that Planning staff can hire independent third consultant to review acoustical information completed to-date and comment on proposed mitigation measures Independent third-party consultant report received from Illingworth and Rodkin. Report raises questions and concerns about initial April 8, 1996 acoustical report and subsequent addendum reports Letter from J. Abrahams responding to Illingworth and Rodkin report Planning Commission hearing continued to allow applicant and staff time to respond to Illingworth and Rodkin report Applicant submits revised statement regarding anticipated tournament play at the site Edward L. Pack Associates submits written response to Illingworth and Rodkin report Response to Illingworth and Rodkin report submitted by J. Abrahams and N. Fisher, co-appellants. Response includes statement from V. Salmon on Illingworth and Rodkin report Response to Illingworth and Rodkin report submitted by W. Wang, appellant Draft response submitted by Illingworth and Rodkin to E. Pack’s June 12, 1997 response to Illingworth and Rodkin April 16, 1997 report Planning Commission reviewed application, received public testimony and recommended that the City Council approve the MND and the Use Permit with revised conditions and deny the three appeals’. September 15, 1997 City council reviewed the application and heard public testimony and continued item to December 1, 1997 so that additional public testimony could be heard. December 1, 1997 City council opened the public heating and received additional public testimony. The hearing was S:\plan\pladiv\cmr~3009schd.lg continued to a date uncertain so that a revised mitigated negative declaration could be prepared and distributed. February 13, 1998 April 9, 1998 Additional environmental information submitted by DEVA Designs, for DSI, regarding air movement, shadow patterns and visual impacts. Additional information submitted by DEVA Designs regarding shadow patterns. June 30, 1998 - July 20, 1998 July 17, 1998 - August 10, 1998 Revised MND advertised in conjunction with a July 20, 1998 City Council hearing. An error in the noticing procedure invalidates notice and the hearing is continued to August 10, 1998. Revised MND renoticed correctly and made available for the required 20-day public review period. City. Council hearing scheduled for August 10, 1998. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\3009schd.lg Attachment H EXCERPT of the minutes of the Palo Alto City Council meeting of December 1, 1997 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District (continued from 10/27/97) Vice Mayor Andersen said that he would not participate in the item because of his close involvement in the issue. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing re-open. Mike Cobb, Dixon Place, spoke regarding the history of the skating facility in Midtown involving a land trade in which dedicated City park and recreation land near the Baylands adjacent to the golf course had been surrendered in return for preserving recreational uses in the middle of the increasingly urban area. Uses contemplated by the voters during an election in 1985 were potentially at risk. The land which was surrendered had since been built on and converted to office uses. Any actions taken by the City to change the recreational uses contemplated for preservation in Midtown would be a great disservice. The current use of tennis and ice skating had been present for almost 40 years, pre-dating the residential uses surrounding the property. The actions taken by the voters in 1985 should be respected. Regarding the noise level, he questioned how people dealing with the physical sciences obtained such different results when working with the same physical phenomenon. The noise consultant indicated moving the wall inward would increase the noise levels. By moving the wall inward, as requested, useless land would be created and a gift of public land would result, Council was urged to do something reasonable within the existing budgets, and to honor and respect the wishes of 70 percent of the voters in 1985 to maintain the existing uses and recreation facilities in Midtown. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, Board Member of Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) and applicant for the use permit, spoke regarding the problems CSI had encountered since the land trade, restrictions on the options the lease granted, and serious mitigations.. CSI was willing to accept the findings of the City’s Zoning Administrator and to build a 10-foot fence around the perimeter of the property. Barring acceptance of the 10-foot fence, CSI was willing for Council to impose the daylight exception and grant the use permit without any mitigation. Council was asked to support the Zoning Administrator’s finding, standing up for the community, and grant CSI’s use permit. Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, Board Member of CSI, read the letter at places (on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Jeffrey Pack, Edward L. Pack Associates, 13980 Blossom Hill Road, Suite 100, Los Gatos, was retained by CSI as a novice consultant to analyze the project. Ira 10-foot barrier was constructed along the west side of the site, residents along Ellsworth would notice a reduction in noise. However, the noise levels were measured at only 50 to 60 decibels (dBA). A 10-foot barrier along the north property line acoustically would be equivalent to an 8-foot barrier; therefore, a shorter barrier would be better than the higher barrier. A sound wall along the property line of the condominium side would make no difference, since residents lived on second and third floor elevations. Using a reasonable source level of 70 dBA, and considering the ambient conditions in worst case situations, the changes of a noise accedence would be very small. If a professional player was playing tennis on a Sunday morning, when the ambient level was at its lowest, a noise accedence was possible, although probably rare. A 10-foot wall along the condominium side would result in a noise reduction of 5 dBA, the value of which was questioned. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether an 8-foot fence on the property line was equivalent to a 10-foot fence along the edge of the courts with respect to the back area. Mr. Pack replied yes. Either one would provide a 9 dBA reduction level in noise, regardless of the source level, because the rear yard was the shadow zone of the barrier. The closer the noise receiver was to the barrier, the more effective it was considering the source of the noise was at 9 feet. A barrier closer to the high source needed to be taller to break the line of site. Using the data which was gathered and the City’s Noise Ordinance, a 10- foot wall along the property line would provide 13 dBA of noise reduction and the Noise Ordinance limit would be met. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the 8-foot height limit would be affected by the noise level for a serve at 9 feet. Mr. Pack said measurements had been taken of a tall person serving a tennis ball at 9 feet. The .consultants came to an agreement after discussion on the different methodologies, analytical . techniques, and calculations. Council Member Wheeler asked about placing the sound barrier walls closer to the source of the noise rather than on the perimeter. Freeway noise walls cut the noise for the people closest to the freeway, but the noise bounced off the walls and was put off into someone else’s yard. The same phenomenon could be experienced as well with the barriers around the-tennis courts. Mr. Pack said consideration should only be given to a barrier along where sound was going in all directions. Mr. Morton said CSI was willing to make reasonable mitigations, such as a 10-foot fence on the property line. If the mitigation was not approved by Council, a request would be submitted for a use permit under the provisions of the daylight exemption. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the noise levels at his residence. On Saturday morning, the acoustical consultant Dr. Salmon measured an ambient level of 37 dBA in his backyard, which he desired to maintain. The Palo Alto Police Department had indicated that with a 10-foot wa!l, the dBA would be in the 50+ dBA level at the tennis facility. Strong tennis servers would be measured at 77 dBA, which would violate the ordinance. What would be gained in the area of tennis would be 10st in the quality of life of the neighbors. In 1994, staff rejected CSI’s proposals and recommended evaluation of the site for alternate use and disposition. No new tennis courts were needed at the Midtown location. Council was asked to uphold the appeal and deny the use permit. Council Member Kniss asked how long Mr. Abraham lived at 736 Ellsworth Place. Mr. Abraham said he had lived at.736 Ellsworth Place since 1985. Council Member Kniss asked whether the courts were used less when Mr. Abraham first moved into his house. Mr. Abraham said Chuck Thompson stopped using the courts around 1984. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, said she had lived at 736 Ellsworth Place since 1976. Lorrain Brookman; 3868 Corina Court, encouraged Council to make a decision regarding the tennis facility on Middlefield Road. Pauline Parker, 430 Kingsley Avenue, member of the tennis club, said residences around Rinconada and Hopkins Parks’ tennis courts were much closer than the homes around the Midtown tennis courts and residents were not complaining about the noise of tennis players. The concern was not merited. Council was asked to postpone construction of a sonnd wall until the courts were in use for awhile, since such walls might become unne.cessary. Council was urged to approve the addition to the recreation facilities of Palo Alto. Jan Van der Laan, 3090 Ross Road, spoke regarding the fences proposed for the tennis courts. Residents in the area were willing to restrict use of the fifth court to children, with the exception of tournament time. That might eliminate any requirement for a fence on that side of the facility. John Klimp, 953 Roble Ridge, volunteer Director of CSI, said for seven years CSI tried to conduct work on a minor expansion of the existing tennis facility, initiated at the City’s request and pursuant to a Citywide vote, 70 percent of whom had been in favor of making the property a recreational facility. Extensive due process was imposed by the City’s Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission who recommended the CSI proposal with 29 conditions. No one should be required to wait seven years for a decision on a proposal. The Council was urged to approve the Zoning Administrator’s recommendation and conditions. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, # 101, spoke regarding the existing fence surrounding the CSI property which was filled with holes and failed to block any noise from the parking lot. The City was urged to find a location, other than public property, for the private tennis courts. The existing four tennis courts were acceptable, but the fifth court was not. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, #206, spoke in support of improving the existing tennis courts and having tennis lessons for children, but objected to turning the facility into a tennis center for frequent, competitive tennis which would result in increased noise levels in the area. The proposed fifth court was too close to the condominiums. The additional court would allow the tennis club to run continuous tournaments. Some of the history of the property was reviewed, including how Council approved use of the facility to train tennis players and the two phases of improvement to the property. The first phase improved the four existing courts, and the second phase was a conditional use permit for a fifth court. TheCouncil was urged to exclude the fifth court from the project. In the event the Council kept the fifth court as part of the project, the mitigation to reduce the noise impact should acknowledge the error in the negative declaration and include a sound wall along the east edge of the fifth court. Without any mitigation measures, the City’s noise ordinance would not be met. The location of the Winterlodge itself and the fences focused the sound on residences along Middlefield Road. A sound wall should be built around the entire facility, especially along the fifth court. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Bukham about the realtor’s disclosure statement when he purchased the condominium. Mr. Bukhan said a disclosure indicated that during the winter months noise could come from the Winterlodge when windows were open. Council Member Kniss asked whether Mr. Bukhan thought the disclosure had been inadequate. Mr. Bukhan said the disclosure was regarding the Winterlodge not the tennis facilities. The four courts were acceptable, not the fifth court. Bill Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, urged Council to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to allow the project to move forward with the conditions stated in September. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the Council had directed CSI to work with the Palo Alto Tennis Club (PA Tennis Club) which would result in a private club on private land. If more tennis courts were provided on public park land, the tennis courts would be available to the PA Tennis Club just as other courts were available to the rest of the community. The intensity would then decrease, reducing complaints. The history from the 1985 Council minutes and staff’s rejection three years prior were reviewed. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, spoke in opposition to expanding the operation to include tennis tournaments and league play, which would increase the noise levels regardless of a 10-foot sound wall. The sound wall would only be effective for people receiving noise at a level of five feet. What the tennis community gained in recreation was lost in basic quality .of life. An indoor facility was suggested. Competitive play on public land was not to the good of the community. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said Winterlodge was a unique facility, and although 74 percent of the voters in 1985 supported a recreational facility, she had not voted for a tennis facility. At the meetings she attended, the land had been considered as a potential housing site because of its proximity to transportation, recreation, and shopping. The City was fiscally irresponsible to consider a tennis facility without considering the housing situation, particularly in light of the three housing facilities being phased out. Greet Park was a very undeveloped and acceptable facility for tennis courts. The Council was urged to reconsider the decision and to use the land for senior and low-income housing. Louis Kavanau, 443 College Avenue, said during the 25 years he had lived in Palo Alto and played at the Chuck Thompson facility, there had not been complaints about noise. Sign ups for the PA Tennis Club in the fall were about 100 to 150 people and, in the spring, 150 to 200 people. During the spring, tennis was played two nights per week. Around town, skateboarders and rollerbladers used the tennis courts, which resulted in the issuance of keys. The PA Tennis Club contributed money for the courts, and the membership cost was $25 per year. Craig Ruess, 765 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding the deterioration of the Winterlodge site. If not tennis courts, he queried what the land could be used for and, after years of deliberation, when. Jane Hayes, 718 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the reduction in property values because of the proposed tennis courts, citing an example of a sale falling through because of the proposed tennis courts. The Sun City ahalogy would not work since the homes on Ellsworth Place were built in 1945 and the Chuck Thompson center was established in the late 1950s. Newer buyers were not affected by major tennis court use. Even though the Winterlodge was on the far comer of the lot, noise could be heard from Ellsworth Place. League play was of great concern. Ms. Wang spoke regarding the illegality of the wall which would not work for an average height adult because a 10-foot wall would reduce noise only below five feet. A fear of flying tennis balls was also expressed. Mr. Bukhan corrected a statement which was made about the distance from the tennis courts to the condominiums as 150 feet. The correct distance was 100 feet. Consideration should be given to mitigation measures for the condominiums. The Council was urged to stay within the noise ordinance. Ms. Fischer said Council Member Rosenbaum was correct that for a serve at nine feet, an 8-foot wall would provide no protection and the condominiums would not have any protection from a 10-foot wall. Mr. Abraham corrected an error in the staff report regarding intensity of use. The PA Termis Club had indicated eight adult tournaments, four children’s tournaments, league play, special events, etc., would be held at the site during the year. That information was not included in the staff report and would change the meaning of the word "low intensity." The area could be made into a park, since the closest park was Hoover. The Council was urged to keep the residents in mind who had to endure the noise daily. Mr. Morton said CSI had responded to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP) and was willing to provide the City with tennis on the site. If conditions were reasonable, a 10-foot sealed wooden fence would be built around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Van der Lama clarified the noise source was 150 feet to the condominiums and the court line to the propertyline was 119 feet with an additional 30 feet to the condominiums. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:55 P.M. - 10:10 P.M. Council Member Wheeler said an allusion was made to the issue of accessibility of the courts and the park-like space at the southeast comer of the property. The implication was that the courts would only be accessible to members of the PA Tennis Club; however, she had been under the impression that anyone could purchase a key without being a member of the PA Tennis Club. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote understood from the proposal that anyone could purchase a key for use during the "public" hours. Council Member Wheeler clarified play would be unavailable only during private lessons and tournaments. Ms. Grote replied yes. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the landscaped or gated area would be of use to anyone. Ms. Grote said the land would be part of the gated area so anyone holding a key would be able to use the park area. Council Member Wheeler asked why the area could not be accessible to people other than the people holding keys. Mr. Morton said a gate would be placed near the Winterlodge and there would be no way of accessing the property other than through that gate. Concerns about liability, exposure, the lack of lights, etc., would probably cause neighbors to want to keep the area limited. Council Member Wheeler asked about the material used to construct the sound wall and the relative effectiveness of a wooden wall versus a masonry wall, both of which would have generous landscaping. Richard Rodkin, Acoustical Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, said the walls had to meet certain minimum requirements for weight. Once the weight requirement was met, the performance of the wall was its height and length. The wall had to be airtight and massive. The major concern with wood fences wasthat even if constructed as airtight when new, over the years the fences would deteriorate if not maintained properly. If the noise barrier were considered, the design would be heavy posts spaced to control the wind, plywood on both sides, faced with house siding, painted, and capped with a 2-foot by 10-foot board. The major maintenance with such a fence was painting. The life span of such a fence would be the same as a wood house with siding if painted. Council Member Wheeler clarified the wood wall would be a solid wall, not like the fence along the property at the current time. Mr. Rodkin replied yes. Many different designs were historically used for wood noise barriers, most of which would not work after a certain period of time,primarily because of not being painted, using an overlap board construction which gaped and cracked. From a noise standpoint, either alternative would work. Council Member Wheeler asked for a cost comparison between a wood wall and a masonry wall, given the description of the .type of wall recommended. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the kind of wall described by Mr. Rodkin had been contemplated by staff. Masonry work would cost somewhat more than wood, but not substantially higher to make it an error in.making a choice between the two. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the wood would have to undergo significantly more maintenance than a masonry wall in order to remain effective over a long period of time. Mr. Roberts replied yes. Clearly, the. cost of maintenance requirements for wood made masonry the preferable choice. Council Member Wheeler asked about enforcement mechanisms related to the ongoing costs of maintenance of a wood wall. Ms. Grote said typically an enforcement mechanism would be on a complaint basis, such as a call received about a fence not being maintained. ~ Conditions could include requiring inspections at intervals of five to ten years in addition to the complaint basis. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the issue of the two roles of Council was raised. At the current meeting, the Council heard an appeal of a use permit. The City was also the owner of the land. A variety of maintenance conditions on the lessee could provide the City with another avenue of enforcement beyond the use permit. Staff had been trying to keep the two roles of the City reasonably discrete, focusing onthe use permit. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an explanation of the City Attomey’s recommendation regarding the action Council should take with regard to recirculating a negative declaration. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had received conflicting expert opinions in October 1997 for which State environmental law would not support a negative declaration. Since that time, the City had an unequivocal mitigation option. Although the option supported a negative declaration, State law required circulation for additional public comment for the period described in the staff report (CMR:481:97). Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Council approval of the staff recommendation would make it important for the Council to define what the fences would be made of which would be the basis for the negative declaration. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about Mr. Pack’s suggestion for an 8-foot wall at the property line rather than a 10-foot wall at the edge of the tennis court, which he suggested would be effective and more attractive. Mr. Rodkin said a noise barrier at theproperty line was more effective than a noise barrier at the edge of the court. The edge of the court alternative was analyzed as part of the mediation process since it was brought forward as an alternative. Prior to that point, he assumed such a fence was not an alterative and that the sound wall would be located at the property line. In his analysis, there was not as great a difference between the two placements as Mr. Pack identified. A 9.5-foot wall would work at the north property line but, in his analysis, he recommended a 10- foot wall at the property !ine. From a noise control standpoint, it was better to place the wall at the property line than at the edge of the court. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the 8-foot versus 10-foot wall, suggested by Mr. Pack. Mr. Rodkin recommended a 1 O-foot wall around the entire perimeter. Council Member Rosenbaum said two letters were sent to Vice Mayor Andersen, one dated October 29; 1997, and one October 30, 1997. In the second letter, Mr. Rodkin stated that Mr. Pack submitted new information, presumably measurements taken at an actual tournament at Cubberley, and that if Mr. Rodkin agreed to those measurements, he might come up with different conclusions. He assumed the presumption concerned how loud a serve was. Mr. Rodkin had not taken measurements of the noise of tennis play. More data had been provided as he went through the process. His first analysis used data from both consultants with which a statistical distribution was conducted and from which a reasonable number had been determined, assuming all of the data had been representative. Mr. Pack had gathered more data of slightly differing conditions, all of which indicated lower levels would regularly occur, although Dr. Salmon’s data indicated that, given the right circumstances, higher noises could occur occasionally. His second letter had expressed a greater comfort level since the analysis was fairly conservative and used all of the data. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an opinion on Mr. Pack’s suggestion for a 10-foot wall next to the creek at the edge of the courts, an 8-foot wall along the back fence, and nothing next to the condominiums. Mr. Rodkin concurred with the 10-foot wall either along the edge of the courts or at the creek. The condominiums were potentially the most difficult problem with respect to the noise ordinance, which was included in the analysis and conclusions regarding the mitigation measures. Considering all the data, noise levels at the condominiums would exceed the ordinance limits. Therefore, some type of mitigation was necessary. Noise exceeding the ordinance limits would originate from the fifth court. Because the receivers were elevated, the only place to feasibly reduce the noise with a sound wall would be adjacent to the court. A suggestion was made by a member of the public that administrative controls were an alternative. He was unsure how feasible such controls were concerning noise generated on the fifth court. His analysis had indicated noise levels of about 5 dBA over the noise ordinance limits in a worst case scenario. If only Mr. Pack’s data was taken as representative of a class of players which could be controlled, an even greater difference in the level of the noise would exist. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the need for the 10-foot wall at the edge of the court would be eliminated if a tennis server would not produce 76 dBA except in very unusual circumstances but was at least 5 dBA less. Mr. Rodkin replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum understood the configuration of a set of walls for a revised mitigated declaration. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council direct staff to revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the noise mitigation recommendations presented in the October 30, 1997, letter from Richard Rodkin, Acoustical Consultant, to Vice Mayor Ron Andersen, as revised to include a ten-foot-high masonry sound wall around the edge of the creek, a ten-foot-high wall on the north edge of the property line, and an eight-foot-high masonry sound wall around the perimeter of the condominium property line and whether a sound mitigation was necessary for the fifth court. Further, direct staff to recirculate the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and that action on the appeals of this conditional use permit not be taken by the City Council until January 1998, after the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been legally noticed for the required 20-day public review period. Further, direct staff to prepare findings and conditions to implement the recommendation. Mr. Calonne said the 8-foot wall required factual findings regarding use of the fifth court. Some evidentiary dispute or at least an interpretive question remained about whether: 1) administrative controls would make sense on the fifth court; and 2) whether or not it was reasonable to assume the high dBA range for typical play. The ordinance established a useful set of standards without creating a mandate for new project construction. The measures would not protect the users of the court from noise ordinance violations. The ordinance was neither a safe haven nor a mandate. Although, as staff had analyzed it for the purposes of environmental review, Council should use the standard. Based on Mr. Rodkin’s observation, discussion regarding the 8-foot fence along the property line by the condominiums should either consider the maximum dBA level expected or some type of administrative controls. Many different mitigation approaches could be used, including gome form of periodic review, testing, reporting, etc., all of which, although burdensome, could be sustainable. Council Member Rosenbaum said the dBA levels assumed for a professional player were not representative of what would occur at the club. The 76 dBA quoted was too high a number to use in the analysis. He used the numbers Mr. Pack had more recently measured for an actual tournament at Cubberley. Mr. Rodkin needed 5 dBA to satisfy the noise ordinance. Decreasing the 76 dBA to 71 dBA, which was more like a reasonable serve by an average player, eliminated the problem. On the basis of what he assumed to be the facts of the situation, nothing was necessary along the condominium wall. However, it would be helpful for general noise considerations to have the wall. How such an observation could be figured into the negative declaration was difficult. Mr. Calonne said CSI raised the issue of whether it had any legal entitlement or basis for claiming the general daylight exception in the noise ordinance. The ordinance indicated the noise level could not exceed the 70 dBA, under its noisiest condition. Administrative controls,~ as a reserved jurisdiction option for Council in the future, would be very useful. In essence, a performance standard could indicate that if a problem arose with the fifth court so that it was not meeting the daylight exception, Council would reserve jurisdiction to return to the issue. There was no evidence to conclude that the court would generate such noise levels, if taken out of the daylight exception, and the City should not limit itself to observing some jurisdiction to return, should it prove not to be the case in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum had not considered the daylight exception but the 5 dBA over the ambient to satisfy the condition. Mr. Calonne said the motion should include direction to staff regarding findings and additional conditions necessary to implement the physical recommendations. Council Member Eakins thought the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would eventually examine the project. Ms. Grote said Council Member Eakins was correct. Council Member Eakins expressed concern about the affect of the walls on sun and shade. ARB would probably require a sun/shade analysis of the project. Ms. Grote said the sun/shade and tree removal issues would be addressed in the EIR. The Council Member Eakins was unsure the presence of the wall would enhance the livability of some of the neighbors’ backyards. Wind would also be an issue. The projected wall’s alignment with the creek and the wind tunnel effect were issues for consideration. The aesthetic monolithic effect of the wall was troubling in its prospect. Recreation should move forward, but sound protection was needed. She was concemed that reliance on the neighbors for administrative procedures might become burdensome. She was uncertain whether she could support all five tennis courts because of the harsh mitigation measure described for the noise. Council Member McCown said major elements of the proposal were before the Council in detail for many years. In 1995, the Council had granted an option to lease the facility to CSI. The Phase I portion, with four tennis courts, was spelled out in detail. She asked about the environmental review process for the Phase I element to upgrade the four courts and whether the environmental process would have been required if the four courts were going to be leased, Mr. Calonne understood the intensification of use aspects of the proposal created the major concern for the environmental review. Council Member McCown clarified the addition of the fifth court and the other recreational uses on the site, such as restroom, snack bar, etc., in the Phase II proposal had caused the environmental review. Ms. Grote said staff discussed the intensification of use. The project involved realigning two of the four courts and resurfacing the courts which would increase the usage, and minor ’ maintenance which would not have led to intensification. Some of the work proposed for the four courts would have involved intensification and would have required environmental review. Mr. Calonne said to the extent resurfacing would have amounted to maintenance of an existing facility, exemptions in environmental law could have been applied if there were no unusual circumstances. Ms. Freeland raised a question that there was a fifth court present although not in use, which factually complicated exactly what intensification should be called, Council Member McCown said the process involved an enormous amount of analysis and work on the part of staff, members of the public, the applicant, respondents, the Planning Commission, etc. She supported the thrust of the motion. The item was on the Council’s agenda for almost as long as she had been on the Council. The Council consistently supported the use of the property as a recreational facility. None of the evidence presented caused her to think it was the wrong policy decision for the community. She agreed with the observation concerning whether some greater sound mitigation was necessary for the fifth court. Based on the evidence, information from different consultants, and using the worst case scenario, higher level of sound associated with professional tennis play was not consistent with her observation of the type of play the facility would have. There was a difference between the sound a professional tennis player made and a player at the PA Tennis Club. The mitigation process would be askew if measures were designed for the noise level of a professional player. Council Member Schneider recalled specifically seeking a housing site close to a tennis and swim facility for her children. Things had changed over the years. In early September 1997, she met with Ms. Fisher, Ms. Wang, Mr. Bukhan, and Mr. Abraham and walked the property. The concerns at the time had been the noise issue and the intensificationof use specifically created by the additional fifth Court. Through erection of a sound wall and specific mitigations for the fifth court, everyone could be as satisfied as possible. She initially was not in favor of the fifth court. When first on the Council, she recommended the fifth area be used for community gardening or as a pocket park. She was convinced, however, that the fifth court would increase the ability 0f Palo Altans to play different types of tennis on courts which would be maintained through the efforts of CSI. She supported the recommendation. Council Member Wheeler said the property was on the City’s agenda for many years and she agreed with individuals who wanted to get the property off the Council’s agenda. She agreed with Ms. Chiapella’s concern regarding theuse of the land. However, early in the process, staff advised Council that because the land had been swapped, it put the City under an obligation to utilize the land in the manner for which it had been swapped, and that was for recreational use. Although the land which was given away was not heavily used at the time, at some point the Palo Alto Golf Course would have taken it over for expansion of the driving range. Most of the people who voted were under the impression the City was trading park land and would receive recreational use in return. The Council needed to keep in mind the promise which had been made to voters in the early 1980s. She had reservations and was outspoken about the fifth court when the item had been before Council a few meetings prior. At the time, the proposed fifth court was proposed for the comer immediately adjacent to both the condominiums and the Price. Court houses. The revised plans were far more sensitive in terms of the relationship of the fifth court to the residential neighbors and took into account the fact there were residential neighbors close by. Further refinement of the relocation of the restrooms and removal of the bleachers were also actions on the part of the applicant which acknowledged the existence of residential neighbors and were sensitive to surrounding residents. It was important that the walls be constructed of substantial material which would not place upon the neighbors of the property the onerous obligation to lodge complaints which a wall constructed of less substantive materials than masonry would require within a few years time. The cost of an appropriate wall, as described by the sound consultant, would amount to about the same as the masonry wall. Maintenance costs over the years would be higher for the applicant and would be far more negative in terms of the success with the neighbors. An example of a very high wall up against neighbors’ backyards was located at the Jewish Community Center and was built at the request of the neighbors. Neighbors preferred walls as high as possible. Council Member Eakins supported the motion, knowing that if the wall was too high, rows could be removed. Council Member McCown clarified Council was moving on recirculation of the negative declaration. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Recirculation of the negative declaration was in anticipation of an action denying the appeals. Council Member McCown assumed the action would otherwise adopt the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions, except to the extent the new elements with respect to the walls were modified by what was included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Calonne preferred to allow staff the flexibility to address the issue when it returned rather than at the current meeting. Staff would then have the opportunity to react to anything which came out of the revised negative declaration. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. Attachment I LIC NO. 558~)01 8~e I~OYCE, FALO ALTO, CA 94~01 IMPACT OF THEIN~STALLATION OF SOUND WALLS ON EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES¯3009 Middlefield Road , _Palo Alto, California _ Tl’{ere are five existing trees that are to remain in the proposed plan that will be affecte~l by the in, stallation of a sound wall: two Cedrus deodora in the parking lot; two existingCupressus sempervirens scheduled to remain along the north property line; and. one Ulmus parvifolia on the east property line. Refer to the attached Tree List for a description of thetrees and their condition as of February 1996: Cedrus deodora -- Numbers 3 & 4 Cupressus sempentirens -- Numbers 13 & 14 ._ Ulmus parvifolia -- Number 18 The following comments apply equally to the both an eight foot or a ten foot wall. The two Cedr[~s deodora will be effected by both the construction of the foundation of a block wall, as well as the ongoing presence of the wall itself.. If- a block wall is set at the location of the existing chain-link fence (as the construction of a wall along the property line would most likely be prohibited by the Santa Clara Valley Water District), the foundation will require cutting into the root zone to Within a few feet of the trunks of these trees. The impact of these cuts is will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that the wall will be set at the current edge of the asphalt, so the exposed soil and therefore the predominant area of i’oot growth will be minimally effected. None the less, the root damage will be moderate and will require compensatory pruning of 10% to 15% of the tree canopy. The wall itself, will change the micro-climate surrounding the trees by reducing air flow and increasing the temperature by reflecting and retaining heat. Thus increasing the risk of disease and pest infestation. A wooden wall would have less impact on both the root zone and the micro-climate. The placement of the posts could be adjusted to accommodate the tree and the root damage would be minimal. A wooden wall would still reduce the air flow, however wood reflects an.d retainsless heat than concret~ block. The two Cupressus sempervirens that are scheduled to be. retained would be lost by the installation of any type-of sound wall that followed the property line in that Io(~ation. Cohstruction of the concrete drainage V-ditch proposed to run along the north property line will already compromise these trees. The ditch and a blockwall together would cut roots on both sides of the trees resulting in an 80% to 90% surface root loss. These trees would haveto be removed. Depending on the final location of the draina~ge ditch, a.wooden wall may be able to be constructed to jog around the trees and avoid major root loss, allowing them to be saved. Similar to the Deadors, the Ulmus parvifolia iswithin a few feet of the existing fence. However, the major source of water for this tree is from the planting area on the adjacent property. The foundation of a block wall would cause severe root loss and would most likely effect the structural integrity of the tree as well as the nutrient uptake. The tree should beremoved if a block wall is installed. A wooden wall would have less impact, as ihe placement ef the posts could .accommodate the tree and the root damage could be minimized. With verification of the actual root loss in the field, it is possible that compensatory pruning of 15% to 20% of the canopy would reduce the wind-sail factor and the tree could be retained ifa wooden wall were installed. The proposed trees will not be effected by the installation of sound walls.. 04/09/1998 1S:83 41532SS8SS55 DEVA DESIGNS Page 2 PAGE 82 Attachment J FROM ROYSTON ~TO A" A ~. 1 ~, 383 1 z1.33 Attachment K Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Land~ Arbiters & Plaaa~ P.O~ Box ~7, M~ Vall~, CA 94942~37 ~ Millet Aven~, Mill V~cy, CA ~1. 415 383-7~ F~: 415 383-1433 MEMORANDUM March 10, 1998 TO: Lisa Grote, City Of Polo Alto FR.:Cordelia Hill, C.I.P. Design Consultant RE:Design Impacts of the Proposed Sound Walls at the Winter Lodge Tennis Facility Review of the proposed sound walls at the Winter Lodge Tennis Facility, as sho.wn in the drawings prepared by Deva Landscal~Jng dated 2/11/98, raises concerns on several design issues, !The height of the walls, will result in a fortress-like appearance to the property. The negative impacts of the 8’ alnd 10’ wall heights detailed below should be considered by adjacent propert~ owners in addition to the noise nuisance. The majority of the noise from play occurs in the four feet next to the ground, with only serves and overheads creating no~se above th~s height. A reduced height should be de~liber,sted, when the .other factors of shadow, wind and mass are considered. The walls, particularly at the ten foot height, will present a mass similar to that of a building, without the articulation normally present in a building. As the walls will be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the walls will be similar to that of freeway sound walls. Care must be taken in thefinal design of the walls to break up the apparent mass. Mitigation for the apparent mass could be achieved through articulation of the panels with texture, banding, etc. Another possible means of mitigation would be to offset the individual panels slightly, to break up the flat vertical surface. The walls on the north property line at both the 8’ and 10’ heights will caste shadows over most of the yard.~ of the adjacent property for the majority of the year. In addition, if the walls are constructed at a 10’ height, they will cast a shadow onto the actual structures. Adjacent property owners should be made aware the loss of light that will result, Lisa Grote 2 March 10, 1998 City of Palo Alto ’ A possible mitigation for the shadow length and the apparent mass of the walls would be to include panels of glass block or plexi-glass on the upper third of the walls, creating ’windows’ for light. The design of these panels should include detailing, such as fenestration or framing, to avoid a tacked-on appearance. The wind patterns created by the walls will impact adjacent property owners, though a ’green screen’ ~:ould reduce these impacts substantially. The green screen should be included as a requirement for development. Further reduction in wind velocities could be achieved by including small openings in the base of the wail. However, this could reduce the sound buffering impacts of the walls. As detailed in the attached report by Deva, the construction of the walls will result potentially in loss of five mature trees along the property line. These trees serve as a visual separation for the property and should be replaced. Two of those trees are in poor condition and would be removed regardless of type of construction. However, if concrete block is selected as the building material, three additional trees would be lost. Use of wood as the building material would reduce the stress and potential tree loss. These losses should be offset by Palo Alto’s tree replacement requirements of two boxed trees for every loss of mature trees, Sincerely, ROYSTON HANAMOTO ALLEY & ABEY Cordelia Hill, ASLA Principal Attachment L Zoning Administrator 450 Xamilton Avenue Polo Alto, California Dear Ms. Grote: I believe the main unresolved problem for us regarding this tennis project is the question of whether or not it will satisfy the Polo Alto Noise Ordinance. First, quite aside from which set of data is used, it is necessary to agree on where the measurements are to be taken. There are t~o sentences in the Noise Ordinance that might~pply for public l~nd. Section 9.10.050 (a.i prohibits a noise level more than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a distance of chapter." The only other sentence that mi~h~ bear on ~h~Ques~ionis the genei~l ~a~i~e exception of.S~ction9.10.~6~ i.a). X~wever as Cit~ Attor~e~ ~:olonne and the City’s Noise Consultant Mr. ~oi6ted ou~ b~f~re the Council an~.Planninq Commission, the phrase ~at its most ~ois~ condition of use makes-it unlikely the latter will be applied t~ this project. Mr. Rodkin aiso recom~en~ed Section 9.10.050 (a) prior to his mediation compromise Wan [Cf. Aprii i6, 1997 Lette~ ta Lisa - ~G~o~e~ page 4]. The three acousticai ha~e all a~r~ed tha~ this projec~ should be zoned commerciaI~ butlacking lha~ uesigna~ion by the city, the Noise Ordinance restricts In the above two-sentences. The lhree acoustical consultants have.osr,~.u ~,,e ~o~ic~ Lvhere they would measure eoise for- this pro.jec~ and the police have said consistently :~at the property plane," a procedure Mr. Bodkin insistsis unreasor~able. That is where the police have measured noise for similar situations on public land throughout the existence of the conditional use permit and appeals. The permit was approved in 1996. I note that there is no part of the Noise Ordinance that specifically justifies current police policy~ wen though a case can be made that }uch a policy is consistentlY, lib similar measurements made on residential and commercial property~ in no case do the police take an ambient reading on one type Of source proper~y and compare it with a noise reading on anotl~er type property 105feet away. !t is like comparing appl~.s and oranges. HoLvever, Planninq argues that when they read 9,10.0501a1 il does not sayto them ’:twenty-five feet from tl~e noise source.Thi~ appa~:~~ly justifies measuring the noise at a poin~ midway into-our back yar~ which happens, because of Matadero Creek, to be 105 feet from the nearest tennis noise source. The difference between measuring at 25 feet and 105 feet translates to about about 12 dBA and grossly understates neighbor’s entitlements under the Noise Ordinance. Indeed CMR:304:2 (.June, 1972, acopy isinyour courtesy copy of my letter of Apri! 24, 199~1 to Mr. Calonne, City attorney.Istates clearly on page 2, On public property, each individual has 6n equal right t6 use a~d enjoy the available spac.e, so the property line is notauseful enforcementdevice. In this instance, an increment of 15 dB over the Local Ambient at a distance of 25 feet from the noise source is allowed." The noise ordinance was originally enacted in 1972 and today contains Section 9.10.050(a) unci~ang~d. The City Staff clearly had in mind 25 feet from the source and the code never" has specified an alternative. In fact 9.10.050(a) has the same wording as the general daytime exception~ which everyone agrees applies to 25 feet fro,,"1 t,~e noise source. Planninq’s rule for whereto measure noise for this project lies outside the N~ise Ordinan~m The effect is a hqbrid approach: the ambient measurement is taken on public proper~y, then 15 dBA is added to get the noise limit, while the noise measurement is taken on private property, over I00 feet away. Dr. Salmon has measured 37 dBA in out- bacl~ yard on a ~aturday ~morning. Our nois,e will increase from about 3~7 dBA toabout .5"6 dBA if Mr. Rodkins plan is effective. That is not an insignificant increase. I call upon you to ,,~onfer with the Cit~ Attorney and revisit your determination that The Prelect Obeus the.Noise. Ordinance" an~I will not significantly impact ~’h.e.L nei.g~bors.LL!hi!e. one can argue about who or wha~ is reasonable f~r this proiect: wesee, no authorization for anybody ~o make up rules, i~isunfbrtuna!e that this question has progressed so fat and is still unaddre~e~. ~ ask you to ~~medy this si-~uation. On other issues: With ~eqard to masonry versus wood far the 10 foot sound barrier, we .~tronglg prefer masonr~I alone. Matadero Creek shouid the project qo in(o effect. Winter i-’odge ~as a historq of allowing their wood f~.nces to deteriorate, as uOU and council m-embers mus"~ haL=e noticed on your site visits. Th~q seem to have a Huckleberru Finn problem: they don’t want to m~aintain their fences. I haL,~prediousl~ provided snapshots of the current state of their fences. .In rem~r~ before the Council on Maq 20, 1985, Mr. Morton ofCSlnoted ~ha~ staff faulted Winter Lo~oe in the lack of lonq-term maintenance !CMR:325:51. ThatCMR aI~o "tended to indicate t~e the Winter Lodge was in ~onstant violation of the noise ordinance"~ page 5772 of the Minutes for May 20, 1985 City Council Meeting. We feela wood fence along MataderoCreek w6uld quickly be ~llowed to deteriorate to the ~oint of ineffectiveness. As you know neighbors have no access to the propertyfor inspection. Clearly CSI wants a wood fence to reduce costs. ~he argument about saving the twotrees on Matadero Creek avoids the fact that these trees can protected by moving the masonry wall back a few feet into tw~the parking soaces. According to your comments in the Negative Oeclaratio6, 89 spaces are required, CSI is proposing 97. Eve~ with masonry Oeva Landscaping has never said the two trees along Matadero Creeks would be lost. As regards the flooding problem, Cittl and Water District .Planners lend to regard I00 year flood prote~ction as a safe haven~or them. In fact, as hydrologists and geologists agree, there, is inrecent years a significantly increased chance of floodingin Northern California and LYe have little protection aqainst a I I0 y~ar flood, for example. The presence of a sound wall al’ong Matadero Canal in theevent of spillover diverts water downstream and into the residences at Price Court, similar to diversions in Pale Alto with the sound walls along highway 101, and what threatened to happen along SanFranciscito Creek because of a barrier proposed on the Menlo Park side. In the event the project is built we would appreciate as a condition that the walls be built before the rest of the project, suchas was done at theYMCA. I note you have listed such ac6ndition in your comments under Air Quality. As regards ~Transportation/Ciri~ulation, I feel Mr. Stoffel has listed reasonably fair estimates of the impact on Middlefieid Road,although during peak evenls they may be low and do not take intoaccount pedestrian and bicycle traffic. What Mr. Stoffel has not done is try to make a left hand turn out of Ellsworth Place onto Middlefieldwhen there is an event at Winter Lodge. There tends to be van parking ~ust south of Materdero Creek which blocks the viewfor- drivers trying to assess Northbound traffic. The effect of the project on Middl~field may be small and not require a dreaded traffic stud.q, but it is quite siflnificant to Ellsworth Residents trying to get out o~ ~heir- private street, llle feel the drivin~ problems aresienificant for our Street, quite aside from Middlefields usual traffic. W~. note you have taken into consideration our request that there be mitigation l~rohibiting simultaneous events on the Facility. This mayhelp to avoid worst Case scenarios. As regards aesthetics, the appearance of a |0 foot tall fort-like Lva!i would be an eyesore. There would seem to be a reasonablechance at mitigati~n along ,~atadero £reek either- by desigr~ articulation, panel offsets, or perhaps ivy pianted along on the wallas at St. Marks Church on Colorado Avenue. Where the problem becomes insurmountable is at Price Court, where residences will be back up a.(}~inst "Fort Winter Lodge." All the articulation and design in the world cannot reduce ~he impact to insignifcance for these residents. An issue ~hat has not bee~ discussed so far-is the visuai less of privac~ for Condominium residents. .indeed it is embarrasing forme, and i beiieve for most people.., to s~and where the propos~.d park wil~ be--,: is so close to !~eopie’s living space. Homes are I ~ o,."° more feet above ~reund level and no prac~,i~ai screen or likely fence would resolve the ~robiem. One final condition we want in the even! the project is built:Play may not start before 9 a.m. on weekdays and Satuidays and 10 a.m. on ~undays, with penalties for violation and a locking .~ystem as recommended by the Planning Commission. " " K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Pale Alto, California 94306. To the ~ of Palo Alto from Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, an al)pellant co: Lisa Grote, Eric Riel, Planning Department: Ariel Colonne~ City Attorney RE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval dated August 15, 1996 of the use permit for the former Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis site at 3009 Middlefield Road, Application No. 96-UP-I. Council Agenda August I O~ 1998 The following remarks concern the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~lated June 24, 1998 and the conditions for the use permit. Mitigated Negative Declaration- Nowhere in this document is the Councii:s unanimous vote for masonry sound walls reflected. Instead, the document reads as though the applicant may use masonry, concrete or wood. Although a sound wall at the western boundary of the site (Ellsworth Place) may be helpful to residents, such a wall at the northern (Price Court) boundary may cause problems as bad or worse than those it is designed to solve. According to the memo from design consultant Cordelia Hill 12/24/98) to the zoning administrator, a wall so close to residents (20 feet from their houses) "will caste shadows over most of the yards of the adjacent property for the majority of the year..." and "onto the actual structures." Alsoq "the height of the walls will result in a fortress- like appearance to the property." Also, Deva Landscaping says in one of its reports t.hat the walls will reflect and retain heat. The question arises: c.ouid this cause a heating problem in the yards of the adjoining property? It seems to me that the only solution to these problems is to move the sound walls further from these homes, closer to the tennis courts. Still to be determined are the hazards to the adjacent homes on Price Court in the event of an earthquake that topples the wall onto their property or, in the event of another flood, if the wall might divert, enough additional water to the properties to cause damage. A full environmental impact report would be needed to answer these questions. An eight foot tall wall at the eastern boundary (condominiums) would offer no sound attenuation whatsoever as the living quarters are on the second story. Omitting the Phase II fifth court or building the sound wail closely around it are the only solutions. Concerning the western, creekside boundary, there is doubt that the sound wail would indeed bring .the tennis facility into legal compliance with the noise ordinance. Mr. Rodkin calculated that, 25 feet into our Ellsworth Place backyard, (105 feet from the nearest tennis noise source) the noise level would just reach the legal limit of 56 dB. The noise ordinance requires 56 dB at a distance of 25 feet from the noise source, not 25 ft. from the property line into the neighbors’ properties. ]he staff report dated June I, 1972 iL.MR.304.2! discusses the then new noise ordinance and says, at the bottom of the second page, "On public property, each individual has an equal right to use and enjoy the available space, so the property line is not a useful enforcement device.~ In this instance, an increment of 15 dB over the Local Ambient at a distance of 25 feet from the noise source is allowed. This standard will permit normal individual and group activities such as routinely occur at pubic parks and playgrounds, but would limit excessively noisy incidents. It also insures thaL beyond a distance of approximately 1.50 feet, the noise would not be noticeable." Because we have serious doubts whether the I0 ft. sound barrier will actually cause the project to meet the legal noise limits on the creekside boundary, and because of the questions raised about the Price Court boundary wall, we believe that a full EIR is required before this project proceeds any further. Conditional Use Permit - suggests for additions or changes: I once again ask that the number of hours of use for this facility be reduced. As currently written, as much as 12 to 13 hours of continuous use would be allowed during the long summer days. Instead of hours of operation from 8 am to dark: Monday through Saturday and 9 am to dark on Sunday (holidays are not even mentioned), I request the following hours: 9 am to dark weekdays, and 10 am to dark Sundays and holidays. Again, I request that no mechanical or electronic equipment, including loud radios and sound amplifiers; and no practice walls or ball throwing machines be permitted at this facility. I request yet again that double locks be put on entrances with only authorized personnel having entrance prior to official starting times and that staff lock up at the end of the day. Very important and requested previously, is that some CSI liaison be aLJailable immediately .~4 hours a day (a recording machine will not suffice), perhaps via pager..CSl cannot enforce its own rules unless someone comes down at once to identify the violators. ~llternatively, CSi can give police permission to identify violators and request~th~s information be forwarded to CSI. it cannot be the responsibility of neighbors to confront and identify persons violating CSI’s rules or to enforce these rules or the City’s regulations. A log of neighbors’ complaints must be kept by CSI. This was done by the YMCA on Ross Road. I request that meetings should be held on a monthly basis for a minimum of one year between the affected neighbors and CSI with city staff represented. This has been done for the YMCA on Ross Road and its neighbors. Finally, I urgently request that the conditions include some restriction on the frequency and length of tournaments at this site, if not at the inception, then later if neighbors complain. 3 "°"- Ariel ,.~luh~_-ill. Palo Alto CIt.LI Attorney 450 Hamil ton Avenue Pa!o Alto, California Dear Mr. Calonne: April 24, Igg8 At the SULILlestion ~f MaLIOr Rosenbaum this past Februar.LI 2nd. Icalled qour off]c~:~nd talI..ed ~.oqou Februarq 11th to point out ~ baP, ic probleri~ with the directed miti~a[ion (Cit!_I Ci:iuncil Meetin~l Dec I, !9~7) regardinq the Tennis P;-olect at ..’,009 Midd[efield F.ioad. ! l~,,,’e found curreritlq within ti~e Citu of Palo Alto four differenLinteriJretations of th~ Nn~,se Ordinance nonc~rninq tl~e important question o~ ’;-.-.,,here noise is to be measured for this projecf., in order of decreasing ’-÷’-~ ~tnP.:::: theu at-e a::; follnws:-DLt ll_. .....: ~, - ¯Palo Alto Noise O,’-dinance Section 9.10.)40 (a) ~g~.~ Attachment "No person shall produce, ~-"~--ou,,~.l or allow to be produced by any mac!~ne or demce, or anq combination of same. on public proE~er-t~, a noise level more than fifteen dB above ti~e local~,~,m~,~t’-;--~ -"- at a distance of t ,- f,.~,~,~nq3-~ ~ve feel or more, unless otherwise provided Jn UlJS chapter." ~" ~L,.,~u.,ri~,~ ,U, bottom of paae T(~,o)- "0n Dub!it prop~rt!~ "~"~",, u ~v~]l~L,~ space, so theindividual h;~R an ~aua] [lq~iL 1o USe aP;d enlOU~ ...." - - vnrn_F_.~nrt~,.4 linn_ is not :9 u::{nfu~ ..... enforcemen{ ~vice. In U~is ~nstance, an J -,~ over the Local Arnbi~n~ ~,~un~_ U~ ~InlR~ SOIJrC:e iS a]ir,,~,~d T,’............... , Ms standard will permit normal individual and qrou~ .... +,,,~--~ ........,,,~,uo~,,.,, as routinely, occur at Dubiic parks andplaqq?ounds, but wou!d l ,-’ ~,., .......:,.:,,,,,~,~ ......_In~,t ~"-~ ....,’,~} nni::q inciden(s. It al::;nlnsures [ha{ beyond a uls~.~lu, of ~-,nrr,,,~ ......_ ,~F,F, _,,.,,matel~] I:,o feet, the noise ~.~,uu~u not benoticeable." !f this interDretation is a~}plied to the [enms prolect th~ "fast" se[tinm and 56 ~=’" ~’- ’"-uu~ pro~ec[ noise limit Mr. Kud~In recommended, ~mi~Is serves as well hs returns wnuld normaliq exceed the nois~ l~m~~ throuQhout th; entire si’- T~-,~- ~u~!o’¢¢s using "’: .........oven tennis data (See~ttacnment 7 and my notes below). The Palo Alto Police take nolse measurements at the sourc-e ~roperty plane, as the’.q have in the past at \,;,’inter Lodqe ..a~ Attachment; I i HP.rnar~d#.7 letter of Januarq Io I QQ4- also Dr-. Vincent F;alrnnnk.=; #tatement Jar,’uary 29, 1997, ~aqe i7 of Planninq Commission Minutes).~hey measure at whatever he~Qht is appropri:~te, as at. Q-I::afe ~n -’,:,.’~’,/t" t~ ,- 1,1 ~.t~.i,~±__~.~_..÷ -,,, ~ 1_ ~ ...............du,.,nto,,,n F;alu ~tu.’~’,,,Lh [lg!4,al’d LU ’,,’,,hi~[l~ L[tlg 5UUIUrd p~upe.lt.q pl~t~el i ~..,--:_.., i h y,:~.,..~--mfirmP.:I_. _.wlth.thP.-F;anla. ~ _. rlara_. ",-.;allP.~- ~q ’v;,’at P.r. ~ Di.---iri -t’. .. ..., ._’:-;anta. Clara County and Paio Alto Public WoM::s (March-23, 1998, Matthew R. Costigan, Enqlneer]ng_Divlslon) that at Matadero Canal, there is aneasement ex[endinq [rom the center of the bottom of the Canal to approximateILI the ciJrrent ’,,^,."esterr~rnost chain i ink fence on the West s~de Of the tennis"courts. The easernent be!on!:Is to the Citu of Palo Alto and is so denoted on the official surveLI, Att6chment2. ~er.lion 18.88.070 V,,’atercourse or Channel (Attachrner~t 4) clearly indicates that such an easement cannot be used to extend the soLlrr_:e lot line West beyond approxirnatelu the outer chain link fence. At 718 E]Isworth PlacP. there Is a ok.~II]qht 11 feet above ground, andat the Condominiums on the East side of ih~ tennis site, the apartments are about. 1-4 feet in height above ground. In both cases, it is necessary to measure noise at the appropriate distance above ground, regardless of whether there is a sound wall present. At 736 Ellswoi-tll Place~ the di~t.~.r~ frQr~ I7.~uri: N~. ~n~r~ ~r~n~i~,in~ ~ ~I~ ~in~ ~n ~I~ . souru~ DroPe~ d4 ~ine near~:~ our ~iou~,e duty, pug~ ,>,, ~, Attuunmen~ J The Planning Department claims that noise measurements may be taken at the source properg.I line p_lus 25 feet at a reasonable dis, tancebeLlond the propert.u, line. "in the--~se of Matadero Canal., the dater Di:-~trict has made i-~. clear tMs refers to a no trespassinq zone, ,,,,;Iti~ siqns ~osted. Staff has said (top of pa!~.e ii of Staff Repor(~for JulLI 30, 19-97 Pla.nn~n~ F:ornrni:_::sion Meetin!.~) theft "The reasonable distanL-:e E,:hall be determine~ b.LI the acoustical ~Jnsultant and the rationale for using the distance sho~]!d be fully explained in the report." m Mr. Rodkin, to lustif!~ the proposed m~ti,.qation (See Attachment 5, paq~ ._’:,:;4, assumes tI:~at norse measurements c:an reasonabl~ b~. taken in the. rnlddle of our back uard at 736 Ellsworth Place, a di:--;i-aru-:~, nf IOK, feet from the nearest tennis servin~ position, Court No 3 He recommends that qenera!ILi measurements can be taken 25 feet beyond the Bropertu. plan~, and ff not convenient there (as in [,he case of Matadero Ca~-~al), rna~q be extended further. I have enclosed a C.o~r,’LI of his report and basic caTculation::: showin!.~ that under his plan tenni:s noise wil! lust ba.re!q reaci~ the 56 dBA r[olse !irn!t when rneasured in the middi:e of our ba~k yard One would think that since we have oni~ one Noise Ordinance there would logicallu,’ be only one correct plaae to measure noise. The E~:-ocedures the-,:~olice use to determine comp!iance are far more stringent than those of either Mr. Rodkin or P]anninq and wouid render .,’.r~e ~roposed m~tiqation infeas~bie (Mr. Rodkin’s state~-~ent in the Minutes ,_.uu~,_.~irid OT ~k’-~:, u_~ i OaQe The,_,~ ,~l~ ,-~,,-I ’--’ ......"Meet ’:; " ~ ÷ -" o" ~ - ’- 5, t~7 °"~ ’-’~-" ’ extreme di ~ference in meadut-ement distance. !05 I:eet v~rsus 26 feet for i~. "÷ difference of 12 decibeis uslnq H;-. Rodkin’s ;-ecornmended settines. A fortiori, the origin:a] ]nten[ inte}-pretation of the Noise urd~nance, r{-~me~gat. .._,~= feet from noise ,=;nurr:~. would, rer,ip.r the mlti!:la,~ion infeasfi:~]e. qou remarked at *~.-,u SeDternber Iq,.._. 1997 CitLI uu.~,~_:,~’--~ .... ~’ Meetinq,wneneve[- there i s a di sputa about a ;-hi tiga led ne.qati’...,~ decl are ~.i on dofie ~n lieu of an Er~vlrormnentat IrnE~act ReI:l)rt the neq,~tive declaration has to be ciear!Li effective. With an arnbi.quit.Li o~ 12 d&cibels correspondin.q tothe abo~,.~ differences In ~nterpret~tiot:[, and the requirement to satfsfy the Noise Ordinance, ! believe the negative declaration as well as the entire E~roject has an Ir~surn~ountahle problern, !0 foot rnasonrLI wall r~ o t’,,,.,,’ i thstandi ng. ~ Once aqain I arn askin~s UOU to rnake a determination about how the Noise Ordinance specifies tak.’inq measurements in this case. As usual in case o[ a conflict between ~ £onditianal Use Permit and a Noise Ordinance the more stringent re~quirement rul~£ (S;ee letter b~ Atb ’-u "~’- ......¯ " ~. o su,, Case, March 24[ 1994, in attachment 8)[ For exampl£, while ~otli P!anninq an~ Police usually4 a~ssert that voice n;sise is not covered b~ ~.he Palo Ait~ Noise Ordinance~ as Ms. Case points out in her enclose~ !etter, because of [he conditional use ~erm~t at Winter Lodge, voice noise ~measured with re~ard to WinterLodqeno~se. Planninq cannot le~all~add lenient and weaI~en~ng conditions ti~at o,,erride the Noise Ordin~ncd. ~ sound studies for the~ ’7’ ’"~ ....-~.h~-~~-~_.,.~can uuu new /-~::;trictinns. A]I tennisproje~tignorepeoBle noise. Wedonot have a realistic estimate r,f th~ dEi,~ th~ I~rai~’t will praduc~.~ Haw can nn~ ,sr.qu.~mitig~tion will brin.q noise levels ~ithin ~egal limit~ when no one kn~w~ anN(hin~ aboutthe ~xpected people noise~’ It is inconsistent to measure people ~oise at ’Winter Lodqe and not allow it in their management of the Tennis Project just a few ~eet away. Please make a determination on this issue before the oroposed Negative Declaration is published by Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote. Thank you for your consideration. ~ Si ~cere I y, ~36 ~Isworth Place Palo Alto, California LL., ,a~u~ Richard Rosenbaum ~"I’.--:. . Li::;~ _Grote,_ Z~m~.nq ~,~,..:,~,~.:, :I"’~"~’~","-~ --,~tu.-~- Mr. Eric Real,-UI.uel P]annin~ Officer Mr. Richard Rodkin, Aco~]stical Consultant, Rodkin, inc. lllingworth and Enclosures with Letter of April 24, 1998 from John K. AbraI1am I:~ Cit-_i=i ~ft~rnp.~ ~,rip.l C~l~nnp.. i ", RerI~jr.~.d ~i ....~.._ _ . ......... .z, ltp. I’i~n nf the proposed t~.nni.~ proiect as submitted by the aDE,!icant to the Cit!.I L-:ouncil. I I1ave drawn a line extendin.q the center line oi No. 3 ~ourt West to our house. This line-runs -"""’~"÷.’-, our nrnD~.rt!.[ on the West side of the creek. I haveapp, ,_,..-,]mately ~,., ....~ .....:~Iso dra’.i;,’r,: in ~h~--i.. ack +~"’-,he., ~t ~h~ suu~ L;~ p:up~tt.LI and~.u.~..~, bl ,.,~ p]-opertLI 1~ ~ ~ ~ ............. labeled them A, B an C, .corre.s~,:mdi~:,~ to West, North and East.~ The ..4" ~@ ....~.~h~.-,l..~H~,, ;",’~:.i~ i~. Kudl-’.,~i’S detailed calculations in his basic le~t~.r of Octobe~ ....’-’..~ I Q’-q.’~ Atta,:h.m~.n~ .5 2) Official Sur’..;eLI of the Source Propertq of the Tenms Prolect at 3005 Middlefield Road -prepared b.q J. Kiehl. dated Jul.q 13, 1992. it has alreadtl been submitted to the Plannin~ C:~mmission’and Citu, Counci!.~,I~t~°"r - ~d;~T.~-’ the source DropertLI !ine near~st’ to ~,,’~,~ Ellsworth Place is a line [-Ijrl~ilF~q down1 the ,.~,~t~, ~"’-" -’- ~I Matadero ’,-Jreek. Palo Alto Public Wr_,rks (6Lh floor.~ confirms that th.e Cit.,q owns the source DroDertkl APN I:.---7-53-.! 5 and that there is an easei:nent runninq from the cehter-of the ¯ toe of I"latadero Canal to aDproxirnateIFI the nea~est chain link fence on the east side of Matadero Canal. This e~semer,,t is owned b!-i the CitLI notthe’~-*-,.,~t~.~ District or Santa Clara ~ ~- ,r.:,,.n~. Clara ’v’allP.LI ;,’- "-._UOU~t_u. marked. T~~S ......--,~ ::,~I.;tIUrI Dro’-.;’l!les the basis for the oriQinal, Plafinir,,g, Policeand Mr. ~’--~’-~ ’ ~ for nois~ mea~urment. The qenel-alr.uu.~..n s recommended si ...... " :~aLitime exception nt q~,-t’.;nn Q Ir;r,..Gn paraqraph (a) has ~I~u~CIy been u~ L.aL~e ,u, this D~:oiect. In case it i~; to be apnii~.rl Mr.-Rndl.’.:i,;._ ,, ha.~: ai;-ead.y ,~,q,-.-.,~i.-.t,~ ~._.,~.,~,.,~,: in f~vor ,-;f_. the ar.,~,.-.IIant~:+.,~ ..._. nn_ ="-- ,.,,,",~-~-i,-,,-{thatI=:,~"- .....~ ....ne,--au,::e ol the ’,.’.’-~".,....~ :r,,~ ,-,;-dinance ~s ;..,..,, ~. 5! !’!r. Rodi.’.:in’:--; ieft~r,"ro~,nrf of October 29, 1997, sent to Mr. Andp.rson_ re~:ial-d i n~.~, ,.~ ...... ~ ~u1~,.,u~’~- ~ ---+ ~ -.-:,,r,-.,-,_,~ .... +. Thio,-- letter appears in the public file for tI~is"p:-o!p.|~t In "~-- .~’-. ,-- -,-w,~nh,,~g: His:~pL.tt, as reqardsEllsworth Place,forms the basis of ti~at part o~ the Propose~ Mitiqated ~’,leqati’,--’e De~:)~!~ation the C:itLI F:ouncil rer:om;nen,-ied De,-:ember I. ]997. 0..,~. Daqe3..."4 r~r. Rodkin shc~v.~’s the underiuinq assumptions in his calculati6n re!3.ardin!3. Ellsworth Place. Sourcel-~ei-.,.~ht is 9 feet above court surfar:eso~i-ce ~istance 26 feet topropert’i, q line, recei,,-,.~ .... h~qh.- t .~..~ t~t.--: ’ rece~.ver distance 79 feet from source fence nearest Matad~i-o Canal (105 feet f:-o~li ÷---.’.11~ ’-’~’-"~’- .......-’i*~’-’’ -"o_. ,_., o i-,~,-: ....,u,, u,~ C.ourt No. 3). The source frequencyInnn...... Hertz. ar,,d assumed hei,~ht of -.r.=,_,und barrip.r_ tO feet. His input source noise value is 76 dBA ~ased on the 90th percentile of Mr. Pack’s and [:,. _,,,It,~u,~ ._-. pooled data. He states that with the wall in place there will be a reduction of 8 dBA at the center of our back yard over what we would clef with no .-,..h.~,~d wal!, 64 ,IBA. In t-,- ._.hlo report he repeat? hisearlierfindin.q that the allowable maximum repetitive noise level would be 56 dBA tot: the pr-|le,:t Ijnder his de::;i.qn parameters a 1fi foot wa!ljust meets the 56 dBA noise standard in our back yard ~.A,. measurement of 56 dBA in our back !.larrl would become 68 dBA a!. the source property plane, exceeding the noT.se limit by I~’,- dBA. 6.:, Memo dated October 30. 1997 frorn Mr. Rodkin to Ron Anderson cnn,-:~.rnin!~_ _ _ . merliatinn .... effnrt This i’.:; in the oublir.. _ fil~._ at Planning. 7’~ r’Ir. Pacl.-."s October~_.,~q Iq.’~7__ report to Mr. Rodkin a~:l...’nn’,,,.;l~.dq~.d in Mr. Rodkin’~- october 30, Igg7 letter above and ~Iso discussed at the December I, i997 Council Meeting (.page 85-294 of minutes). This report provides results of additional maximum noise level measurements made durinr4 a tournament at Las Palmas I .~..ennl. courts in Sunn!.Ivale and of -",’ ii,~ ~d:~It~ pla.q q at tI~e Cubberl~I tennis courts in Palo Alto. N~te the three .:,_.t~, nf d~.a-taken 25 fee(- from the side of court. TI~is distance compares with the distance from court No. I in .I~.he-Site Plan, near Ellswort11 Place, to the proposed barrier. The pooled data, 84 measurements, from the three sets of 25 foot .measurements, excluding the 3 test serves, shows the following distribution of measured levels: dBA measured Number of measured hits at 25 feet 54 55 3 56 7 58 5 65 5 66 .4 67 i ¯ " ...." "59.8 dBAA~,~,~g~ dBA of 84 hil.s = Of the 84 ~ub!ished hits., note that 68 (81%) exceed 56 dBA, the project :Ini’=:s. limit, at ’;= - ~..... ..~, I" ue,.. Mr Pa~:i.’.".--~ di:-~, ance.~!rnm plaijs.l~o metercan v~r~-con~--~)der~bll4"b~qorI~j-2.5 feet ’ and wou!d he. !ess ~ =~..~,~n the sound levels of Dr ’-~.,.._-,~Irnon’s data at 25 feet for " "_ :-U e _-" The pror~osed barrier w~ll be closet- than 25 feet from Court No. and measurements ’,,,’,,,’ill great.ly ~.xces.d 56 dBA at the top of any 10 foo~ wa!!. As Mr. Pack himself writes at the top of paqe,- 3: "After ’.,,-,,,’atchin~ the ..,’ar~,ous tennis ~iayers, no matter what ~ge or le-:.,el., it was apparent’that serves did not create tI~e highest nolse level. The service returns seemed to record tile I~ighest. It a~peared that near!L! all of the E~la~ers wou.-.’id i~i~ the ball fairl!~ hard on tI~e..., ~: serve, but-they often ~aui}.ed. TheLi would then hit the.- second serve softly to maintain contro! and hit ~he-bail inbounds. The return of the second, serve was usually the !oudest." 8) C:ib~ of P~l~ Alto Memorandum, June !5, !994 from RicI~ Cabrera ~.o Fil,~ req~i’dinQ ’~,-’inter Lod~qe, 3009 MiddlefieId Road 89-UP-50 This rnemo,-an~J~.ml de~.ails the noi"Se c~ip!aints reqardinq ,dinter Lod~e and response of ~he Police. Note Pa~qe 2. paragraph¥~umbered 2: "The o~ficers on duty would be advised to t,~ke no~se readinQs at the property line. Again, this would include noise emanating from ~ople." A similar question of measurement site w~th re!~ard to an adioimn.q ¯ creek occurred at the YMCA proiect on Ross Road in-1991. Mr. Rodkin’~ firm took noise measurementsin that case ~ns~de the YMCA .nroperty lines. Mr. Pack, th~ applicant’s nois~ consultant, also was asked to m_.,~.:,ut~ noi--.s, at a source property r~lane ~,.~n Ihe middle of a creek) at Brookside Tennis Club in 1995 and instead elected to measure near the fence, on the source pl-operb4. (Cop~4. _. in Planning [;1X, l;.lOrl) "-- File on 3009 Midd!efield). Nate alsa the letter fram Sue Case to Ms. Genevieve Dean dated March 24, 1994, first paraqraph: "While the ,N~oise Ord~inance appears nottQ apI~Iq tQ human o, Qi~, (~ll~ w~rdinQ appli~ tQ nQi~ produced b~ "an~ machin~ or device’) a usepermit -must ensure that the use i~ not detrimental to others. In that respect, enforcement of the Use Permit for the Winlerlodqe is not limited to tI~e strict coveraqe of tI~e Nm.,e Ordinance, because human .~,,~,~ ~s an integral .part of the Winterlodqe’s need for the Use ~en~it. That is wnu Rich Cabrera is trying to #~,ork on "people control.’" -’ 9j~ Copy of the Use Permit 89-UP-50 issued for Winter Lodge’s expansion at. 3009 Middlefietd Road, Zoned Public Facility, with 12 Cu~ |u ~ Ll OF’IS. i0) Staff Report CMR: 304:2 dated June I, 1972 to the City Council ~ ~ ,.u [,lni ".--;~. - ’- ’ ......_,_ _ I_I~ dl:Im.~,_-~..-’-egm-d~.n!~ the Palo ’ ~- !,iotfce on paqe T-,,,vo, approximatei!jmiddie of pa~.e: "This standar~i~,(ambient plus r_-,-dBA~ w,z, uld appl~j ~ua!ILI tO nnl~e sources of ai~ types--people, stereos, ~.nimaIs andtools." -Thus the ori.qinai intent o~ ,,’.he nolse ordinance would not exclude peopie nolse as Planning and Police currently do. ATTACHMEN~T 2 A.P.NO. 127-53-15 ¯ PREPARE BY: J. KIEHL CHECKED BY: J. BOURQUIN APPROVED BY: J. REMLEY DATE: JULY 13, 1992 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginnin~ at the centerline of Matadero Creek; said point being North 47~ 13’ 54" East, 261.62 feet from the intersection of the Northeasterly line of Middlefield Road with the centerline of. Matadero Creek as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map Being a Resubdivision of a Portion of Lot 74 of C.M. Wooster Company’s Subdivision" recordedMarch 29, 1973 in Book 320 of Maps on Page 3, Santa Clara County Official .Records; Thence along the centerline of said Matadero Creek North 47013, 54" East, 261.98 feet; Thence South 52° 00’ 00" East, 328.21 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ 00" West, 162,00 feet; Thence North 52° 00’ 00,’ West, 197.86 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ 00" West, 96.59 feet; Thence North 52° 00’ 00" West, 172.38 feet to the Point of Beginning. Codtaining 1.634 acres more or less of land and Being a portion of Lots 74 and 75 as shown on that certain map entitled "C.M. Wooster Company’s Subdivision of the Clarks Ranch" recorded November Ii, 1912, in Book "O" of Maps on Page 16 of Santa Clara County Official Records, together with the use of a common drive described as follows: ’~eginning at a point on the northeasterly line of MiddlefieldRoad, said point being South 52° 00" 00" East 206.85 feet.from the intersection of the centerline of Matadero Creek with the Northeasterly line of Middlefield Road, Thence North 38° 00’ 00" East, 153.00 feet; Thence North 52°. 00’ 00" West, 2.50 feet; Thence North 38° 00’ 00" East, 221.82 feet; EXHIBIT B (1 of 3) L A.P.NO’. 127-53-15 PREPARE BY: J. KIEHL CHECKED BY: J. BOURQUIN APPROVED BY: J. REMLEY DATE:. JULY 13, 1992 Thence South 52° 00’ 00" East,85.00 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ 00" West,20.00 feeL;. Thence North 52° 00" 00" West,65.00 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ 00" West,151.82 feet; Thence South 30° 52’ 30" West,20.16 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ 00" West,183.00 feet to the Point on the Northeasterly line of said Middlefield Road; Thence North 5~ Beginning. 00’ 00" West, 20.00 feet to the Point ~of Excepting there from a portion of that certain Flood Control and Storm Easement Recorded in Book 3965 on Page 1 of Santa Clara County ~Official Records and lying Southeasterly- of theNorthwesterly line of the above described parcel. END OF DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B 2of 3 ~ # 74 SWIM & TENNIS FACILITY 38"- t ~1’45~;’00’ C..." W AREA TO £,E LE~-’JED:~ COMMD>, u~,i’¢E <~I51T "9’ [~.:,’r, LEASE Zr TI-tE :":~’MER ....SWIM #L’ IEHrlIS , ACILIIY ROAD I EXHIBIT B JAY E. REMLEY, SR. I .09.020 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ATTACHMENT 3 fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth -~Ord. 3856 §1 (part), 1989) 9.09.020 Unlawful conduct. Except as provided in Section 9.09.030 of this chapter, no person shall sell, offer or display for sfle, give, lend or transfer ownership of, or pos- sess any assault weapon. Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall te punished as provided in subsection (a) of Sec- don 1.08.010 of the Palo Alto Mtmicipal Code. (Ord. 3856 § 1 (part), 1989) 9.09.030 Exemptions. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the f01- lowing: (a) The acquisition, possession or disposi- tion of any assault weapons by. police depart- ments, sheriffs deparmaents, marshal’s offices, the California Highway Patrol, other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, or the mili- ta~" and naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties, or the possession of assault weapons by ~gular, salaried, full-time officers, employees or agents thereof when on duty and when the use of assault weapons is with.in the scope of their duties. (b) The possession of any assault weapons when such possession is prohibited by Section 12031 of the California Penal Code or Section 2010 of the California Fish and Game Code. (Oral. 3856 § 1 (part), 1989) 9.09.040 Compliance. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, was legally in .possession of any ~iS- sault weapon, or who subsequently obtains title to an assault weapon by bequest or intestate succes- . sion, shall within thirty days remove said assault weapon from within the city limits of Palo Alto or surrender it to the Palo Alto police department. (Ord. 3856 § l (past), 1989) CHAPTER 9.10 NOISE 9. I 0.010 Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizem of Palo Alto require protection from ex- ¯ cessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community. It is the intention of the city council to control the ad- verse effect of such noise sources on the citizen under any condition of use, especially those con- ditions of use which have the most severe impact upon any person. (Oral. 2664 § 1 (part), 1972) 9.10.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms are defined as follows: (a) "Sound level," expressed in decibels (dB), means a logarithmic indication of the ratio between the acoustic energy present at a given location and the lowest amoum of acoustic energy audible to sen.~itive human ears and weighted by frequency to account for characteristics of human hearing, as given in the American National Stan- dards Institute Standard S1.1, "Acoustic Termi- nology," parag-~ph 2.9, or successor reference. All references t~ riB. in this chapter utilize the A- level weighting scale, abbreviated dBA, measured as set forth in this section. (b) "Precision sound level meter" means a device for measuring sound level in decibel units within the performance specifications in the American National Standards Institute Standard S 1.4, "Specification for Sound Level Meters." (c) "Noise level" means the maximum con- tinuous sound level or repetitive peak sound level, produced by a source or group of sources as measured with a precision sound level meter: In order to measure a noise level, the controls of the precision sound level meter should be arcanged to the setting appropriate to the type of noise being measured. (d) "Local ambient" means the lowest sound ¯ level repeating it.self during a six-minute period as PUBLI.C PEACE. MORALS AND SAFETY 9.10.060 measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting. The minimum sound level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, and in the same location as the measurement of the noise level of the source or sources at issue. However, for pur- poses of this chapter, in no case shall the local ambient be considered or determined to be less than: (1) Thirty dBA for interior noise in Section 9.10.030(b); (2) Forty dBA in all other sections. If a significant portion of the local ambient is produced by one or more individual identifiable sources which would otherwise be operating con- tinuously during the six-minute measurement period and contributing significantly to the ambi- ent sound level, determination of the local ambient shal! be accomplished with these separate identi- fiable noise sources silent. (e) "Vehicle" means any device by Which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway or street. (f) "Property plane" means a vertical plane including the property line which determines the property boundaries in space. (g) "Emergencies" mean essential activities necessary to restore, preserve, protect or save lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm. 0a) "Combustion engine leaf blower" means any portable machine powered with a gasoline en- gine used to blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns or other surfaces. (i) "Residential power equipment" means ,any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, electric leaf blower, lawnmower, hedge trimmer, edger, or any other similar tool or device. (Oral. 3751 §1, 1987: Ord. 3609 §1,~.1985: Oral. 2664 §1 (part), 1972) 9.I0.030 Residential property noise limits. (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential prop- crty, a noise level more than six dB abo~,e the 1o- cal ambient at any point outside of the property plane. (b) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, or de- vice, or any combination of same, on multi-family residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient three feet from any wall, floor, or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property, when the windows and doors of the dwelling unit,are closed, except within the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located. (Ord. 2664 §1 (pan), 1972) 9.10.040 Commercial and industriai property noise limits. No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any com- bination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. (Ord. 2664 § 1 (part), 1972) 9.10.050 Public property noise limits. (a) No person shall prtxluce, suffer or allow to be prtx:luced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on public property, a noise level more than fifteen d.B above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dBA measured at a distance of fifty feet are exempt from this chapter when approval therefor has been obtained f’mm the ap- propriate governmental entity, except as provided in Section 22.04.180. of this Cbde. (c) Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall not be used when the vehicle is at rest, or when a situation endangering life, health or property is not imminem. (Ord. 2664 §I (pan), 1972) 9.10.060 Special provisions. The special exceptions listed in this section shall apply, notwithstanding the provisions of 0.060 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODH Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.050. Said excep- tions shall apply only to the extent and during the hours specified in cach of the following enumer- a,:ed exceptions. (a) General daytime exception. Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding seventy dBA at a distance of twenty- five feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the provisions of Sections 9.10.030(a), 9.10.040 and 9.10.050(a) between ~ne hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday tivough Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six p.m. Co) Construction. Except for construction "on residential property as described in ~bsection (c) of this section, construction, alteration and repair activities, which are authorized by valid city per- mit shall be allowed between the hours of eight a.m. and eightp.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m. on Sundays and holidays, if they meet at least one of the following standards: (I) No i_ndividual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the. device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shatl be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from’the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed one hundred ten dBA. Posting notice of construc- tion hours is required. The holder of a valid con- st.ruction permit for a construction project within this city, which project is located within five hun- dred feet of any residential zone, shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site upon com- mencement of construction, for the purpose of in!’orming all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen and all other per- sons at the construction site,, of the basic require- ments of this chapter. (A) Said sign(s) shall be posted at least five feet above ground level, and shall be of a white background, with black lettering, which lettering shall be a minimum of one and one-half inches in height. 03) Said sign shall read as follows: CONSTRUCTION HOURS (includes any and all deliveries) MONDAY--.TRIDAY ....8:00 a.m. to 8:~ p.m. SATURDAY ...............9:00 a.m. to 8:130 p.m. SUNDAY/HOLIDAYS.. 10:00 a.m. to 6:130 p.m. NOISE LIMITS 1.No individual piece of equipment shall exceed 110 dBA, measured 25 feet from such equip- merit. 2.Noise level at any point outside of the con- st.ruction property plan shall not exceed 110 dBA. Violation of this Ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months in jail, $1,000 fine, or both. Violators will be prose- cuter. P.A.M.C. §9.10.060(b). (c) Construction on residential property. Construction, alteration, demolition or repair ac- tivities constructed on residential property, au- thorized by valid city permit, shall be allowed only during the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m. on Sun- days and holidays, if they meet the following (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed one hundred ten dBA. 908 PUB.L.IC PEACE, MORALS AND SAFETY 9.10.070 (d) Other equipment. Equipment Used by city employces, city contractors, or public utility com- panies or their contractors, not covered by sub- sections (b) and (c) of this section, shall be al- lowed during the same hours as the exception set forth in subsection (b) of this section, providing no piece of equipment shall produce a noise level which exceeds one hundred ten dBA, measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from the equipment. (e) Residential power equipment. Residential power equipment shall be allowed during the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday tl’u’ough Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m. on Sundays and holi- days, providing it does not produce a noise level that exceeds ninety-five dBA measured at twenty- five feet from the equipment. (f) Gas-powered leaf blowers. Until July 1, 1989, gas-powered leaf blowers, which do not produce a noise level in excess of eighty-two dBA when measured from a distance of twent~,-five feet, shall be allowed during the following hours: nine a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Satur-. day and ten a.m. and four p.m. Sundays and holi- days. On July 1, 1989, and thereafter, only gas- powered leaf blowers which produce a noise level of seventy-five dBA, or less, shall be allowed during the permitted hours, specified in the pre- ceding sentence. (g) Street sweeping. Street sweeping activi- ties are allowed between the hoursof ten p.m. and seven a.m. daily, provided they do not pro- duce a noise level in excess of ninety-five dBA, or local ambient, when measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from the street sweeper, (h) Refuse collection. Refuse collection ac- tivities shall be permitted between the hours of four a.m. and nine p.m. daily, provided they do not produce a noise level in exces.S of ninety-five dBA measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from the activity. (i) Safety devices. Aural warning devices which ar~ rec]uired by law to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community shall not produce a noise level more than three dBA above the standard or minimum level stipulated by law. (j) Emergencies. Emergencies are exempt from this chapter. (k) Public parking lot cleaning. Cleaning equipment, when used in public parking lots, shatl be allowed during the hours of ten p.m., and seven a.m., Monday through Friday, providing no such piece of equipment shall produce a noise level that exceeds eighty-two dBA measured at a distance of twenty-five feet"until Ju.ly 1, 1989, and seventy-five dBA measured at a distance of twenty-five feet thereafter. (1) Business district street cleaning. Cleaning equipment, when used in public s~ets in busi- ness districts shall be allowed during the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., Monday through Fri- day, providing no such piece of equipment shall produce a noise level that exceeds eighty-two dBA measured at a distance of twenty-five feet until July 1, 1989, and seventy-five dBA meas- ured at a distance of twenty-five feet thereafter. (Ord. 3881 §11. 1989: Ord. 3790 §1, 1988: Ord. 3763 §1, 1987: Ord. 3751 §2, 1987: Ord. 3640 §1, 1985: Ord. 2664 §1 (part), 1972) 9.10.070 Exception permits. If the applicant can show to the city manager or his designee that a diligent investigation of avail- able noise abatement techniques indicates that im- mediate compliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impractical or unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from the provisions contained in all or a portion of this chapter may be issued, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short duration as possible up to six months, but renewable upon a showing of good cause, and shall be conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of meth- ods therefor in appropriate cases. Any person ag- grieved with the decision of the city manager or his designee may appeal to the city council pursu- ant to Section 16.40.080 of this Code. (Ord. 2664 §1 (pan), 1972) 909 Rcv. Ord. Supp. 125)1 9.10.080 PALO ALTO IVVUNICIPAL CODE 9.10.080 Violations. Violation of Section 9.10.060(e) or 9.10.060(0 shall be an infraction. Violation of any of the other provisions of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor. (Ord. 4751 §3, 1987) CHAPTER 9.12 LOUDSPEAKERS 9.12.010 Open air loudspeakers. The use of electronic equipment, including but not limited to amplifiers, radio loudspeakers, phonographs, tape amplifiers, electronically oper- ated musical instruments or other device of like design used for producing sound in or upon any public street, park or grounds, or any other open area to which the public has access, whether pub- licly or privately owned, between the hours of eleven p.m. and one hour after sunrise is unlaw- ful. (Oral. 2556 §1, 1970: prior Ord. 1278 {}7.04, 1950) CHAPTER 9.141 SMOKING AND TOBACCO REGULATIONS 9.14.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section: (a) "Bar" means an area which.is devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages, Bar shall include bar areas Within eating establishments which are devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and in which serving 1 Editor’s Note: Prior Ordinance history: Ords. 2657, 2842, 3185, 3476, 3503. 3618 and 3768. food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. (b) "City pool ear" means any truck, van or automobile owned by the city and operated by a city employee. City pool car does not include vehicles operated by the police department. () "Eating establishment" means a coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order care, luncheonette, sandwich shop, soda fountain, restaurant, or other establishment serving food to members of the public. (d) "Employee" means any person who is employed .by any employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit. (e) "Employee eating place" means any place serving as an employee cafeteria, lunchrooms, lounge, or like place. (f) "Employer" means any person who employs the services of an individual person or persons. (g) "Enclosed" means closed in by a roof and four walls with appropriate openings for ingress and egress. th) "Motion picture theater" means any theater engaged in the business of exhibiting motion pictures. (i) "Public places" means enclosed areas within publicly and priv.ately owned buildings, structures, facilities, or complexes that are open to, used by, or accessible to the general public. Public places include, but are not limited to, stores, banks, eating establishments, bars, hotels, motels, depots and transit terminals, theaters and ’auditoriums, enclosed sports arenas, convention centers, museums, galleries, polling places~ hospitals and other health care facilities of any kind (including clinics, dental, chiropractic, or physical therapy facilities), automotive service centers, general business offices, nonprofit entity offices and libraries. Public places further include, but are not limited to, hallways, restrooms, stairways, escalators, elevators, lobbies, reception areas, waiting rooms, indoor service lines, checkout stations, counters and other pay stations, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, lecture rooms, buses and bus 910 Rev. Ord. Supp. 12/91 ATTACH~,LENT 418.88.070 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE existing which does not comply with this section shall not be expanded, enlarged, or replaced in event of demolition or destruction, except as may be authorized by an encroachment permit issued by the city. (Ord. 3178 §1, 1980; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.070 Watercourse or channel. No portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such lot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.080 Measurement. Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback line, or other line Or location prescribed by this tide shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior wails, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the~ building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measure shall be applied for all new ~ctiort; provided, that where existing structures, uses, areas, heights, dimensions, or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions, and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and improvements and changes thereto, and the building official, zoning administrator, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this tire shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this tire in the less restrictive manner. (Ord. 3048 (pan), 1978) 18.88.090 Projections into yards. (a) Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features, excluding fiat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior apace, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required front, side or rear yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two fee0 except that, in residential districts or nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, the window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story. (b) A canopy or patio cover may be located in any residential district in the required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard which is more than 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet) from the street lot line m~ along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 3.7 meters (twelve feet) in height. (2) The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of b.uildmg coverage. (3) The canopy o.L patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more ~ fifty percent of the required rear yard. (4) The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two sides. (c) Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in ~ight or 2.3 square me~rs (twenty-five square feet) in floor area, used exclusively for storage ptlrposes, may extend into a required side yard a 18162 18/29/1997 17:~7 4154596448 ILLIN~TH RODKIN PAGE 02 IlilE Acoustlcs ¯ Air Quality IIII/ October 29, 199’7 Ron Anderson City of Pale Alto City Council P.O. Box 10250 Pale Alto, CA 94303 3009 Middlefl+ld - Mediation Effort I am writ~g this letter to smnmar~ th~ comments tlmt I made at the ~t m~ation m~t~g ~d to ~s~nd to a queen ~om W~ W~ reg~g ~ ~ we ~ to calc~ate the e~iv~ess of ~ b~s. Before designing mitigation measures, one must have a ~-t ofassumptions in place regarding the allowable noise level, the l~cazion and level of the ~)urc¢ of the noise, and the possible locations for the noise barriers. W’nh respect to the Noise Ordinance, the City d~temdned that the Ordinance would allow an instantaneous, repetitive noise level ~e,~) of15 dBA above the ambient. Based on measurements by JeffPack, the ambient is amm~ to be 41 dBA. The allowable maxinmm repetitive noise level would therefore be 56 dBA. I recommend that the noise ordinance be enfon~l in the cente~ of the rear yards of the adjaoent residen0es or on the balconies of the adj scent condominiums. Using data developed by Vincent Salmon and JdfPack, I determined that a sound level of 76 dBA would be appropriate for noise ordinanoe analysis. This level is the tenth percentile below the top of tl’~ st~fi~i--~I distn’b~on of noi~ levels -,v,~,ich -,v~’e -,~,,pplivd in their reports (2dBA below the loudest measured level). This would be r~pro~ntative of the noise generated by a serve. The hdght of the serve is assumed to be 9 feet above the grotmd. The serves are assLtmed to be struck at the servia line in Court 3 for the analysis to the we~t and in Court 5 for the analyses to the north and east. 1 have enclosed barrier oaloulations. Calculation Sheets 1 and :2 summarize calculations to the north, The ba~cr h as~a_mcd to be located at the north property line. Calculations show the barrier must be 9 to 10 feet high in order to reduce noise to 56 dBA Lc~f~t. We, therefore, 85 Bofinas Road, #11 . Fair~ax, Oalifornia 94930 . (4!5)459-,5507 -FAX (415)459-6448 18/29/1997 17:87 415459S448 ILLINGWORTH RODKIN PAGE 83 Ron Anderson October 29, 1997 Page 2 recommend a I0-foot barrier at the north proimm! line. Calculations to the west are shown on page 3. Barrien~ were t~sted on eaoh side of the creek. A 10-foot barrier is necessary along the Wintedodg¢ side of the creek and as 8-foot barrier is necessm7 along the neighbors’ side of the The problem to the east with the condominiums is somewhat different because it is a multi-story st~uoture. The unmitigated noise level is predicted to be 61 dBA at the balconies of the condominiums. Asmaning ambient noise lm, cis are similar at the condominiums, then 5 dBA of additional noise reduotion is required. Assuming a second-gory receptor 14 feet above ground, a 14-foot barrier is nec, casary at the property line. An alternative would be to construct a 10-foot high barrier at the ~ edge of’¢~ 5. Barrier heights and locations are shown on the enclosed figure. The ana!ysis is based on information provided on plans azgl from the respective parties. This concludes the sustain6, of my analyses. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the meeting on October 30th due to illness but w~l be available ai%er that to answer any questions. Sincerely yours; Richard B. Rodld~ PE Enclosures ........ (97-025) ILLINGWORTH RODKIN PAGE 04 18/29/1997 17:87 4154596448 ILLINGWORTH RODKIN ¯ ! ILLINGWORTH RODKIN PAGE 86 17." 07 4154596448 ILLI~TH RODKIN,PAGE 07 18/29/1997 17:07 4154596448 ILLINGWORTH RODKIN ATTACHMENT 6 i.LINGWORTH F ODKIN, Acoustics . Air Quality I!ill MEMO To: From: ...... Date: Subject: Ron Anderson/City Council/City of Palo Alto Richard B. Rod "kin, PE October 30, 1997 3009 Middlefield -- Mediation Effort I am writing this memo in response to a letter received today from Jeff Pack of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. and a telephone conversation with Mr. Pack. He conducted additional noise measurements of tennis play of the type that would be representative, in his opinion, of activities that would occur at Winterlodge. The new data would support assuming a lower noise level for the noise of tennis play. His analysis confirmed that approximately a 9-foot source height would be appropriate for an adult serving. Using his data, he proposes a 9- foot barrier at an alternative location adjacent to the courts along the west property line, a 10-foot barrier adjacent to the courts along thh north property line, and no barrier along the ~st side of Court 5. While his data increases my comfort level regarding likely conformance with the noise ordinance, I hesitate to discount the data that Dr. Salmon has gathered. I suggest constructing a 10-foot barrier around the west, north and east court boundaries as an alternative (Figure 1). The 10-foot barrier along the north property bounda~, we concur, is the minimum necessary. The 10-foot barrier along the west property boundary (1-foot higher than Mr. Pack recommends) would provide a definite break in the line-of-sight between a person serving and a person standing in the rear yard. While Mr. Pack’s data indicates that the ordinance limits would be met at the condominiums with no mitigation along the east side of the courts, only a slight excursion above his predicted worst case levels would cause an exceedance. It would, therefore, be prudent to continue the noise mitigation along the east edge of the proposed Court 5, as we previously recommended. RBR:gfl Enclosure (97-025) 85 Bolina.~ fqn~4 ~c~;.,~v ,’. I EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 13980 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD, SUITE 100 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-723-8900 FAX: 408-723-8099 October 29, 19997 Ms. Linda Jensen Winterlodge of Palo Alto 3009 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject:Tennis Playing and Ambient Noise Level Measurements, The .Winterlodge,Palo Alto Dear Ms. Jensen: This report will provide you with the results of additional maximum noise level measurements of tennis playing made during a tournament at Las Palmas tennis courts in Sunnyvale and of adults playing at the Cubberly tennis courts in Palo Alto. The tournament players at Las Palmas were one of the adult groups that would be playing at the Winterlodge facility and were playing mixed doubles. Additional measurements of two younger adults not associated with the tournament were also made.. The players at the Cubberly courts were a man and woman, both age 27. The man is a former assistant pro who was providing lessons to his partner. B~th of these players were skilled. The male player was also asked to serve a few balls as hard as he could for testing purposes. October 25, 1997, Tournament at Las Palmas Location 25 ft. from the side of the court one game Sound Levels. dBA" 63 66 60 63 61 59 58 59 61 MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY’ Side of the court, 25 ft. from the mid-line - one match 80 ft. from end of the court Tournament players 80 ft. from end ofcottrt young adult players 65 63 59 63 66 58 55 63 56 59 55 56 56 62 66 61 60 60 57 64 64 60 53 58 63 59 61 62 65 No levels exceeded 50 dBA Hits ranged from 48-56 dBA October 26, 1997, Cubberly tennis courts 25 ft. from side of court one match 62 54 58 57 61 61 59 65 61 59 61 54 58 64 66 58 60 65 61 56 62 57 60 61 65 57 54 55 51 58 56 54 56 59 59 56 59 57 62 59 63 58 61 67 61 60 Side of the court at feneeline, approx. 25 ft. from mid’line Test serves at 25 ft. Hits ranged from 53-63 dBA. One return was 70 dBA. One serve was 68 dBA. 74 68 74 -3- After watching the various tennis players, no matter what age or level, it was apparent that serves did not create the highest noise level. The service returns seemed to record the highest. It appeared that nearly all of the players would hit the ball fairly hard on the first serve, but they often faulted. They would then hit the second serve softly to maintain control and hit the ball inbounds. The return of the second serve was usually the loudest. The previous studies of having people serve a ball as hard as they could does not represent typical playing scenarios. Even the better players don’t hit the ball as hard as they can as control is easily lost, hence the loss of points and ultimately, the game. The realistic noise levels of people indicative of those that will play at Winterlodge are in the range of 55-70 dBA at 25 ft. from the player. The typical serves were up to 58-64 dBA. It is my opinion, that the data represented by Vince Salmon were of two Stanford players, possibly NCAA ranked, that are obviously not the type of players that would normally use the Winterlodge facility. Although I had asked Vince to describe the players, he was not ale to provide me with details of the types of players under study. I have yet to see anyone hit a ball well over 70 dBA at a distance of 25 ft. during regular playing or teaching. Using 76 dBA at 25 ft. is just too high of a level for this type of facility. Serving heights have also been verified. A person 6’1" has a serving height of 8’10". A ¯ 5’9" person (average man) has a serving heiglat of 8’7". The ambient noise levels at the condominiums to the east of the facility were measured- from 8:00 a.m. -10:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, October 19, 1997. The outdoor skating rink was closed. Indoor skating was not audible. The ambient levels were 44 dBA for each hour. The noise limit, therefore, at this location is 59 dBA. Using 70 dBA as a source level at 25 ft., the noise level at 100 ft. would be 12 dB less or 58 dBA. This level is below the noise limit for the condos. Noise mitigation is not necessary. -4- The ambient on the west side of Matadero Creek may be as low as 40 dBA. Thus, the noise limit would be 55 dBA. Using the same methodology as above, at 100 ft., i.e., the distance from the courts to the center of the residences rearyards, the noise level would be 58 dBA. This is a 3 dB excess. Keep in mind that this is a worst-case scenario as most players will not exceed 54 dBA at 100 ft. A 9 ft. high barrier at the tennis courts is more than adequate to protect the Ellsworth Place residents. This barrier may be located along the rear fence of the courts in lieu of placing a 10 ft. high barrier on the east side of the creek or an 8 it. high barrier on the west side of the creek. An 8 ft. high barrier is still recommended for the north property line, whether it is placed on the property line or near the property line. This report presents the results of additional tennis playing sound level measurements of typical tennis players for the Winterlodge tennis facility in Palo Alto. The study findings are based on field measurements and are correct to the best of our knowledge. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President Dr. Vince Salmon Mr. Richard Rodkin ATTACHmeNT .8 CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum June 15, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: File Rich Cabrera Winter Lodge, 3009 Middlefield Road 89-UP-50 On January i0, 1994 a meeting was held with Sue Case,--Joe Colonna, Jon Hernandez, and myself to discuss complaints regarding noise at the Winter Lodge. The concerns included music, a zamboni machine, and people noise. The complaints are from the adjacent condominium complex. The most vociferous complainant in January was Vadim Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, #204, 493-5017, work 725-6743.. Another complainant was Genevieve Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road, #201, 493v3626, work 812-4101. There was a lot of discussion at the meeting regarding the type of noise that could be enforced. In the noise ordinance, noise emanating from people, is not a violation. Only noise, such as music and noise from machinery would be a violation. It was determined that the conditional use permit for the Winter Lodge included .all types of noise, including that emanating from the public, such as children, youths yelling, screaming, etc. Another point of discussion was the noise levels determined by PACK and Associates with benchmarks for the noise levels. Apparently there were certain times that were not included: 7 PM - 8 PM, 8 PM ~- 9 PM, during weekdays and weekends. Noise levels for the local ambient plus i5 decibels was included in a chart (attached). A note on this chart states: "hours not shown on PACK and Associates benchmark chart - maximum noise levels set for this table according to information provided." Lt. Jon- Hernandez stated that the Police Department was responding to complaints) and noise readings were being taken at the property line. Jon said that he would forward copies of the Police reports regarding the complaints. Normally, the police handle noise complaints. However, in this instance, there are concerns regarding a use permit. It was decided that Rich Cabrera (Code Enforcement Officer) would get involved in this situation. The strategy was the following: I would notify the complainant, David Bukhan, to call the Police Department, if and when, he (or any other persons) had complaints. The officers on duty would be advised to take noise readings at the property line. Again, this would include noise emanating from people. Jon Hernandez would receive the police reports regarding the Complaints and forward to me. o o I would analyze the reports to see if there were violations of the Noise Ordinance. I would go to the Winter Lodge. to make certain that copies of the. use permit and noise reading levels were present at the front desk. I would also explain the enforcement strategy. The Winter Lodge would be advised that any violation of the use permit’s allowable noise levels would be strictly enforced. Lt. Hernandez did indicate that there.had been two previous violations on October 3, 1993 between 9 and .9:30 PM and November 20, 1993 between 9 and 9:30 PM. Again, Lt. Hernandez said that he would send me copies of these reports with violations. In addition, there was another report with a considerable amount of calls to the Winter Lodge regarding noise, including !oud parties, music too loud, etc. The police did not-make reports at these inspections. There was an assumption that there were no violations of the noise ordinance. However, this could not be determined. Again,-the strategy was for me to be involved regarding noise complaints for [he duration of the Winter Lodge ice skating season. On Friday afternoon, January 14, 1994, an inspection was made with Linda Stebbins Jensen, director of the Winter Lodge, 493- 4579. The serious concerns regarding noise at the Winter Lodge were explained. The director said that the Winter Lodge was making every effort to operate the ice skating in accordance wit]] the noise levelregulations. They are keeping music as low as possible, while having it heard by the ice skaters. They have cut down the hours of programs. They have adult ice skating during the week days. Friday and Sunday nights-are.family nights and only Saturday is junio9 high night, where there is more potential for more noise. In~ addition, late night parties have been eliminated. I said that I understood the steps that the Winter Lodge had taken. However, an analysis would be made of the situation. complainants were encouraged to call the Police to see if there were any violations. Winter Lodge was to keep a copy of the use permit and noise level conditions at the front desk. The director .said that she and her staff would do all that they could within reason to comply with the regulations. During the week of January 27, 1994 I received a copy of a letter from Jon Hernandez to all sworn Police Department personnel. A complaint was received from Mr. Bukhan on January 15, 1994 regarding the ice cleaning’ machine, human voices and the P A system.. The analysis of the report indicate~that the main concern was a girl that was screaming. Staff was advised to control the ice skaters.I mentioned this to the director in subsequent inspections. On Friday, January 21, 1994 after receiving various police reports, ! contacted David Bukhan to explain to him the enforcement strategy. He (and other persons at the condominium complex) was advised to call the Police Department to see if there were, indeed, violations, to establish/ a pattern of the problems and to determine a solution. If there were a series of violations, it was mentioned that there might be a need to modify the use permit. On January 21, 1994 a reinspection was made at the Winter Lodg@. It was noted that in the previous weekend, there had been some concern regarding noise with one .person yelling. The staff was advised to control the skaters. During the weekend of Friday, January, 21, Saturday, January 22 and Sunday, January 23, 1994 there were no complaints received by the Police Department. On Friday, January 28, 1994 an anonymous complaint was received by the Police Department regarding people talking at the ice skating rink. The noise level was 57.6 and the allowable noise level was 58. This is within the allowable noise level. On Saturday, January 29, 1994 another complaint was received from Mr. Bukhan regarding skaters at the ice skating rink. Unfortunately, due to numerous calls for police service, it was not possible to respond and get a sound meter reading° On February 2, 1994 a verbal update was given to Sue Case. She said to continue with the enforcement procedure as planned. On Thursday, February 3, 1994 another inspection was made at the Winter Lodge. The director of the Winter Lodge said that she felt that thee Winter Lodge was being harassed. She said they are trying the best they can, and are concerned about all of the inspections. I explained to her that the city is trying to get everything out on the table. She indicated that she was concerned that one of the board members felt that the people noise was not something that needed to be measured, since it was not in the noise ordinance.~ I explained that according to the City’Attorney, the use permit conditions are stricter than the City noise ordinance. The use of the Winter Lodge facility and the Conditional Use Permit do cover people noise. Again, I explained to the director that it is important to analyze all of the issues.~ If people noise is a problem, this will have to be resolved. If it is not a problem, this will not be an issue. The director indicated that these issues had been discussed for several years.. I indicated that this is the first time that such a comprehensive enforcement procedure, had been conducted. The director said that she and her staff would continue to do all that they could to comply ~with the conditional use regulations for the Winter Lodge. bn February 9, 1994 I contacted Jon Hernandez. There had been no complaints received by the Police Department the previous weekend. On Thursday, February i0, 1994 a call was received from the director. She said that she was going to be out of town, but if there was a problem to contact staff before 2:00 PM on February ii, 1994. On February 13, 1994 I contacted Jon Hernandez, once again. No complaints had been received from the Police Department for- the previous weekends. On March i0, 1994 I Spoke to Jon Hernandez and he said that no complaints had been received recently. On March 16, 1994 letters were sent to Sue Case and myself from Genevieve Dean expressing some concerns regarding noise at the %.~inter Lodge. A response letter was sent from Sue Case (copies attached). In essence, the letters state that the staff ~ill continue to monitor the conditions at the Winter Lodge and if there are violations, steps will be taken to correct the situation. In mid and late March, contact was made to the Police and Planning Departments regarding a special year-end event for the Winter Lodge. The Winter Lodge had been conducting this event since their first year of operation, 38 years ago. However, this year with all of the concerns and complaints, they wanted to make certain that they obtained the proper permits. Planning said that they did not issue a permit. The Police Department indicated, in essence, that special event permits are really not granted. Jon Hernandez did state that the Police Department is prepared for the "big event". Police understand that this will be conducted between 6:30 - 9:00 PM, most likely to end earlier. They also consider this to be within reasonable, hours and they understand that there might be an occasional violation of the decibel readings by people yelling, but this should not be major~. The Winter Lodge assured that the music and other sound should definitely not exceed the use permit levels. On April i, 1994 I spoke to the director regarding the special event. The Winter Lodge indicated that they -had written letters to all of the members of the condo units next door letting them know about the 3-day special event for 3 days. The Winter Lodge ~said that if for Some reason there is a complaint about music, ~the system will be turned down immediately~. Again, the Winter Lodge said that they will take every step possible to not have the music be loud. But, just in case, they will take special precautions. The plan was also established so that if there were a complaint regarding "people noise" (clapping, cheering,, etc.), PD would log the complaint, take a reading, and give the information to Jon Hernandez, who in turn, would give the information to me to analyze the data and act upon, if nec~ssary. Attached is a letter of March 4, 1994 from the director of the Winter Lodge requesting the specia! event permit. Also, attached is a letter of March 30, 1994 to the neighbors regarding the special event. On Friday, April 22, 1994, a call was received from David Bukhan. He indicated that he was still concerned about noise at the Winter Lodge. I asked him why he had not called so that we could establish a pattern regarding the noise, and determine if indeed there was a pattern of violations. I indicated that the PD had been prepared to monitor the noise to see if there were any violations. If there were, code enforcement would take the proper action which might even lead to modification of the use permit, if there were violations. Mr. Bukhan said that he did not call because he did not want to bother the PD. I indicated that the only way we could have established a pattern of violations for the season, was to continue the monitoring. Again, I reiterated that the PD had been prepared to take ihe necessary readings. Mr. Bukhah also indicated that he thought there were a gap in the use permit table regarding noise level. I explained to him that there was a benchmark ambience noise level table established for the operation of the Winter Lodge facility (copy- of table attached). Subsequent to the special event weekend, I contacted Lt. Jon Hernandez. No complaints had been received from PD regarding noise during the special event weekend of April 22, 1994. Conclusion A great deal of time and efforthas been spent regarding the noise situation at the Winter Lodge since the meeting of January i0, 1994. There have been minor instances of violations, but no major violation pattern has been established. In essence, the Winter Lodge appears to be in conformity with the noise level conditional use regulations. At least, this is the result of my observations during the period of January through ~pril, 1994. The way time goes, the new season will be fast upon us and I have indicated to the Winter Lodge that they will continue to be monitored and a similar analysis and report will be written next year. If there is a pattern of violations, enforcement will be taken. The Winter Lodge has stated that they want to qooperate as much as possible with the City regulations. Although, it is not required, they have promised to place a sound me~er reader at the property line, with the monitor device being placed at the front desk. The theory here is that the staff will be able to monitor noise. If and when, there are violations, the staff will be able to eliminate the problem, immediately. I plan to contact the staff of the Winter Lodge in September to verify the instattion of this sound monitor reading device. Again, this is not required. However, if and when it is placed, it should be of great assistance for next season and years to come. RMC:jb Attachments cc:Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney Lt. Jon ]fernandez, Police Department Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official Joe Colonna, Associate Planner Mike Baird, Supervisor, Building Inspection PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM D~TE: SUBJECT : All Sworn Personnel Jon Hernandez January 12, 1994 Winter Lodge Update Winter is upon us and so’are noise complaints from Winter Lodge. Sue Case, Assistance City Attorney, Joe Colonna and Rich Cabrera from the Planning Department and i met to discuss our options in addressing this continuing problem. The Planning Department required the Winter Lodge in 1991 to have a report prepared by an acoustical engineer to establish the maximum allowable a~nbient noise levels for the site for both weekdays and ~eekends. Edward L. Pack Associates took measurements while the Winter Lodge was not in operation. The analysis and noise readings set a "benchmark" for maximum allowable noise levels between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and midnight. As a result, the highest ambient noise level allowed by the use permit is 66 dBA, weekdays, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. The lowest is 52 dBA, weekends, between ii p.m. and midnight.See benchmark table on page 2. The following procedures were agreed to: I.Because this maximum allowable noise level is required as part of a conditional use permit and not the noise ordinance, enforcement of this regulation will be the responsibility of Ric~ Cabrera, the Ordinance Compliance Inspector. 2.Upon receiving a noise complaint, pblice personnel wi!l respond and take noise readings at the property line of the Winter Lodge. A Noise Ordinance Complaint Report must be completed and the sound meter readings noted. Police will not be reouired to establish or note "local ambient" levels, because those have been established on a standardized basis in the Pack report. Leave this box vacant. Forward a copy the report to me. i will forward the same to Mr. Cabrera fo~; follow-up and enforcement of this use permit condition under Title 18 of the Municipal Code. Benchmark Ambient Noise Level Limits for the Operation of the Winter Lodge Facility Time Period Weekdays <7 a.m. - 8 a.m. 8 a.m. - 9 a.m. 9 a.m. - i0 a.m. p.m. - 5 p.m. p.m. - 6 p.m. p.m. - 7 p.m. 7 p.~m. - 8 p.m0* p.m. - 9 p.m.* p.m. - i0 p.m. i0 p.m. ’< ii p.m. !I p.m. - midnight Weekends 7 a.m. - 8 a.m. 8 a.m. - 9 a.m. 9 a.m. - i0 a.m. 4 p.m. - 5 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. 6 p.m. - 7 p.m. 7 p.m. - 8 p.m.* 8 p.m. - 9 p.m.* 9 p.m. - i0 p.m. i0 p.m. - Ii p.m. ii p.m. - 12 p.m. Noise Levels Local Ambient + 15 dB 43 58 43 58 44 59 50 65 51 66 .50.65 50*65 50*65 41 56 40 55 40 55 38 53 42 57 43 58 48 63 48-63 47 62 47*62 47*62 39 54 40 55 37 52 *Not shown on Pack & Associates Benchmark Chart - maximum nois{~ levels set for this table according to information provided. 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 2~1 Palo Alto, CA 94306 March 16, 1994 Mr. Rich Cabrera Ordinance Compliance Inspector City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Pa]o Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Cabrera: Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Sue Case, of the City Attorney’s office, regarding the meeting of City officials she convened in January to discuss noise at the Winter Lodge skating rink. As 1 say i~ that letter-, we - the neighbors near the rink -appreciate your efforts to resolve this thorny dilemma. We are encouraged to learn that the participants in this meeting believe that there are still ways the Winter Lodge can reduce the noise that reaches our homes. I am especially grateful for the current reduction in the volume of the music played at the rink and hope it will"continue. "People noise" from skaters and spectators is still a problem, and I understand from Ms. Case that the group which met in January discussed various ways this might be controlled. We would be. interested to learn what you have considered and when such measures will be implemented (and :would like to draw your attention to suggestions we have made in the past, which I reiterate in my letter to Ns. Case). We believe that continuing to call the police each time we feel there is a noise violation by the Winter Lodge is unsatisfactory. This reactive approach does nothing to eliminate the problem and, when there is a delay in the police response, does not even bring timely temporary .relief. Furthermore, the permitted noise levels are unclear, as the Pack Report establishes ambient levels for only some of the hours the rink operates, and the measurement techniques used by the respnnding officers are sometimes questionED!e. Since this approach only wastes police resources without solving the problem, Mr. Bukhan and I would, like to meet with you to discuss how this procedure can be improved. Noise from machinery continues to be annoying, I do not know if there has been an increase in the volume of noise from the refrigeration unit this year, but this noise has carried in our direction much, more perceptibly this season than in the past. hope this will be corrected before next year’s skating season begins. The zamboni is usually run well after closing time - to 10:20 p.m. yesterday, for example - which I believe contradicts the Zoning Administrator’s intent. 2 Palo Alto ordinance 9.10.050 calls for prior approval by "the appropriate governmental entity" of special events held on public property generating up to 80 dBA at 50 feet. Are the end-of-season shows and rehearsals at the Winter Lodge so approved, and by what office? And is the noise at these events monitored in any way? Again, thank you for your participation in the meeting called by Ns. Case and for your assistance in the past, which has led to significant improvements in the situation. My observations and suggestions here are offered in the spirit of building on these improvements, and I am confident that, with your help, we will reach a solution acceptable to all concerned. Would you be kind enough to call me (at 812-4101 during the day and 493-3662 at home) to arrange a time when we’could meet to discuss the next steps? Si~. erel y, /m~L~ .Genevieve C. Dean 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 201 Palo Alto, CA 94306 March 16, 1994" Ms. Sue Case Office of the City Attorney P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Ms. Case: Thank you very much for convening the January 10 meeting on the issue of noise from the Winter Lodge Skating Rink and for calling to tell me of the outcome, I very much appreciate your efforts, and those of your colleagues, to resolve this problem. My understanding, based 6n that telephone conversation, is that the City atLorney has found that the Palo Alto noise ordinance does not address the question of "human sound;" the January 10 meeting.concluded that it is difficult to enforce the City ordinance on the Winter Lodge. because the Pack report supersedes the Palo Alto noise ordinance; the me&ting participants believe that the Winter Lodge currently violates reasonable noise conditions; it is believed that better "people control" practices by the Winter Lodge may reduce the"human sound" emanating from the ice rink; the meeting recommended continuing efforts to enforce the conditions imposed in Use Permit. 89-UP-50, and accordingly, the police will take noise readings upon .complaint and will report their findings to Mr. Cabrera,. who is responsible for enforcement of Use Permit conditions. As I mentioned to you on the phone, the noise from theWinter Lodge consists not only of "human sound," but also of electronically amplified music and voice announcements and the sound of the ice grooming and refrigeration machinery. The structure of the Winter Lodge, an "L" shape opening in the direction of our homes, and the hard surfaces of the building and the ice tend to amplify all these sounds in our direction, and we have long contended that baffles, sound-absorbing materials, and appropriate landscaping would help to reduce all reflected noise, human or otherwise. Horeover, I wonder if there is a pr-ecedent for controlling "human sound" in the case of volleyball at Peers Park? Hy only knowledge of this is an item carried in the Palo Alto Weekly on October 17, 1990, page 11, which reports that, "In response to neighborhood complaints about noise, volleyball players are being temporarily restricted as to when they can play at Peers Park." 2 The Pack report is a measurement of ambient noise levels, at the Winter Lodge site and, as such, establishes the baseline from which the permitted levels above ambient are determined. We have not questioned these measurements, though as I have pointed out to Mr. Colonna, there are inconsistencies in the time periods shown in the Pack report which should be clarified if this document is to be. the~ basis for enforcement. However, I do not see how the Pack Report overrides the City noise ordinance, which specifies permitted levels in terms of decibels above ambient noise, since the level above ambient currently allowed is consistent with the ordinance (9.10.050) governing noise at public facilities. There is obviously a discrepancy between reasonable noise and the noise which carries onto our property from the Winter Lodge. would have been appropriate, and was within the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, to have made a lower level above ambient noise a condition of the Use Permit. Because this differsntial was apparently decided upon before ambient measurements were made (or more accurately, because no discretionary action was taken to lower the default level permitted to Public Facilities), the Zoning .Administrator could not have known that the resulting total noise now allowed exceeds EPA recommendations and predictably leads to community aqtion. At the time, we accepted the assurance of the Zoning Admin’istrator that the conditions she was imposing in the Use Permit would lower the noise from the Winter Lodge. This has not been borne out by experience. .Those conditions have not been adequately enforced, and even if enforced, set excessively high limits on permitted noise, given that the noise carries unchecked onto nearby residential properties. Ultimately, unless lower noise levels are enforced or the.noise is somehow contained on the Winter Lodge site, violation of" "reasonable noise conditions" on our property will continue. I would be interested to know what forms of "people control" will be recommended to the Winter Lodge as-a means of reducing noise from that source... Limiting the number of people on and around the outdoor rink at any one time is one way of decreasing the volume of "human noise,’" and damping reflected noise, as I noted above, would further reduce the sound which carries into our homes very clearly, even when there are only a few skaters present. We appreciate the suggestion to &ontinue calling the police when we are disturbed by noise from the Winter Lodge, but we have found that this is not only burdensome to us but ineffective in bringing about any permanent change in the situation. There is already sufficient evidence of violations of the noise levels defined by the Pack Report, let alone violations of reasonable noise levels, to warrant corrective action, but as long as no penalty attaches to such violations they will continue, no matter how frequently we call the police. 3 However, after five years, we have lately been enjoying some.relief from the music and public address announcements at the Winter. Lodge, either voluntarily or as a result of your efforts and those of Lieutenant Hernandez and Hr. Cabrera. My concern, of course, is that former practices will be resumed when official attention shifts away from this problem and when the Winter Lodge operators are no longer contenders for use of the tennis and swim facilities behind the ice rink. We have consistently maintained that the rink can be operated at tolerable levels of noise, but we would be more confident of this continuing if such levels were made conditions’of a revised Use Permit and effectively enforced. In the meantime, we ask that enforoement of the terms of the existing permit be improved. We believe that this requires, at a minimum, clarification of the time periods for which ambient noise levels are established by the Pack Report and additional measbrement of ambient noisa levels ~t the hours not now covered. We also ask that escalating penalties be imposed for repeated violations of the conditions of the Use Permit, We will work with Nr. Cabrera, in the first instance, to devise a method of monitoring noise levels that will be more efficient than calling the police when we subjectively think that viol.ations occur. Again, than~ you for convening the meeting to discuss this situation, We have already experienced a significant lessening of the noise disturbance from the Winter Lodge, and I am hopeful that we can continue in this direction. Sincerely, / Genevieve C. Dean copies"Jon Hernandez Rich Cabrera Cityof Palo Aho Oj~ce of tl~e City A t ton~j March 24, 1994 INS?EI3TION SERVIC Genevieve Dean 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 201 Palo Alto, CA 94306 RE: Winterlodqe .Dear Ms. Dean: Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1994. I would like to clarify one point. Under the conditions of the Use Permit, the Pack report "supersedes" the Noise Ordinance only to the extent that it sets the ambient noise levels. The al!owable thresholds are still based on the Noise Ordinance, but measured from the Pack report ambient levels. While the Noise Ordinance appears not to apply to human noise, (the wording applies to noise produced by "any machine,~r device") a use permit must ensure that the use is not detrimental to others. In that respect, enforcement of the Use Permit for the Winterlodge is not limited to the strict coverage of the Noise Ordinance, because human activity is an integral part of the Winterlodge’s need for the Use .Permit. That is why Rich Cabrera is trying to work on "people contro!." We are still continuing to monitor the Winterlodge noise, and we hope, like you, that it will stay at a low level. However, if problems do arise, you are more than welcome to call the Police Department for a decibel reading, if that is appropriate, or contact Rich. You are mlso welcome to contact me at any time, understanding that resolution of a specific noise complaint might occur more quickly through one of the other departments. Sincerely, SUSAN W. CASE Senior Asst. City Attorney SWC:Iac cc:Rich Cabrera, Ordinance Compliance Inspector Joe Colonna, Associate Planner Jon Hernandez, Watch Commander I’.0. l~ox IOZ~ ¯I 15. 329. 2171 ¯I 15. 329.2Glfll ax The .. Winter Lodge ~3009 Middlefieid Road Palo Alto, California 94306 (415)493-4566 REC~|V~D INSPEC,flON SERVICES March 30, 1994 Dear Neighbor.. We would like to let you know in advance about our exciting end-of-the- season events!. Olz April 22, 23 and 24 at 6.’30 p.m. we will be presenting our amutal children’s show~’ This year we are an official part of PaIo Alto’s Centennial Celebration and the show will portray a historical overview of Palo Alto. So far, it looks as though these will be sold out shows. The shows generally last 2 to 2 1/2 hours. (If you are interested in attending, please call the Winter Lodge for more infonnatio~O. We are looking forward to this, our 38th annual end-of-the-season event and we thank you in advance for your understanding during these popular community showsl Linda Stebbins Jensen 19irector, Wimer Lodge LSJ/Im ~--3009 Ms.~ Glaes, The Winter Lodge Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California 94306 (415)493-4566 ~/ March 4, 1994 I am writing on behalf of The Winter Lodge to request a permit for a special event. (Per Palo Alto noise ordinance 9.10.050 b). The permit is requested for our 38th annual ice show.. This show is the most important part of the season for many of our 1,000 children in lessons. This event has become quite a tradition over the years. This years show is an official part of Palo Altos centennial celebration. Needless to say, much of our program all year is geared toward skills development and being able to show those skills off to friends and family at the show. This show is always the highlight of the year and because we are a non profit organization, this fundraiser is"a significant and essential event for us. This show has gone on with no problems for many years. We always notify our neighbors and the police ofthis show. ~ do not expect this show to be any different than in years past, however, with the large amount of people who traditionally attend I assume the "people" noise, due to clapping and cheering, may exceed the 15 dba allowed above ambient. I wish to do everything possible to ensure these children have a great show without interruption. I believe requesting this permit is the most reasonable and responsible way to accomplish this. ~ This years show is Friday, Saturday and Sunday, April 22, 23 and 24, beginning at 6:30 p..m. The shows usually last between 2 and 2 1/2 hours. The Winter Lodge is located on city land (as mandated by the citizens of Palo Alto) and is operated by a non profit organization. Please let me know if you have any further questions. (I will Thank you for your time andbe out of the office March 7 - Ii). consideration. Sincerely, Linda Stebbins Jensen Director, The Winter Lodge 493-4579 PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM LOCATION OF NOISESOURCE ........DISTRICT BEAT CASE NO. DA~E REPORTED "-DAY REPOR’f:ED 7 IME REPORTED DATE(S) OCCURRED DAY(S) OCCURRED TIME(S) OCCURRED LAsT NAME, FIRST NAME, MI. lSUSPECT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS w IPHONE W PERSON(.~)’ CONT ACTED ADDRESS PHONE DESCRIPTION/SOURCE OF NOISE LOCAL AMB.[~ NOISE LEVEL dBA PREVIOUS C ONT ACT S / H ~T~OIRsYT ¯ [--~ NO VIOLATION WARNING dBA dBA LOCATION OF READING I~I 2NO WARNING [~ CITAT ION COMMEN~) IDATE PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM LOCATION OF NOISE SOURCE DATE REPORTED U l l-.Zo DATE(S) OCCURRED DAY REPORTED DAY(S) OCCURRED DISTRICT BEAT I CASE NO. TIME REPORTED TIME(S) OCCURRED / ?oo-2.2. Do RP LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, M I SUSPECT NAME ADDRESS PHONE H ,./2g - 5-o i2 PHONE PERSON(S) CONTACTED ADDRESS PHONE J DESCRIPTION/SOURCE OF NOISE !NOI~ ,~’LEVEL " .,/I ",:--’-~" -LOCAL AMB I ~ Z. dBA d-.’ 2" dEIA LO..~?TIObl OF READING PREVIOLIS CONTACTSIHISTORY ~ ? N~:~ ~: o , ~ ’ t ) ’-~ ~ NO VIOLATION ~ 1ST WARNING ~ 2NO W~R~INO ~ C:ITAT~ON I )?FICER ID NO.WATCH IDATE ]SUPERVISOR REQIEW ! PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM LOCATION OF NOISE SOURCE DATE(S) OCCURRED DAY REPORTED DAY(S) OCCURRED CASE NO. TIME REPORTED ;~os- .~ T IME(S) OCCLIRRED "~oo0 -- ~\~0 SUSPECT NAME ADDRESS IPHONE ADDRESS PHONEPERSON(S) CONTACTED DESCRIPTION/SOURCE OF NOISE ~ GP~oO~,~OC-- nn~,( I~mE~, LOCAL AMB I NOISE. LEVEL . PREVICIUS CONTACTS/HISTORY dBA dEIA dBA dSA [--I NCl VIOLATION ISI- WARNING [] 2ND WARNING ~ t::::ITATION COMMENTS / PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM LdcATION OF NOISE SOURCE DATE REPORTED DATE(S) OCCLIRRED DAY REPORTED DISTRICT BEAT CASE NO. TIME REPORTED DAY(S) OCCLIRRED T IME(S) CICCLIRRED RP LAST V NAME, FIIRST NAME,r-ll ADDRESS SUSPECT NAME ADDRESS ..~. PERSON(S)CONTACTED ADDRESS PHONE s- DESCRIPTION/SOURCE OFNOISE .. ..... ,. ,:-...~~...,. .,...,..- .....;., ::.. ,.." LOCAL AMB NOISE LEVEL dBA dEIA LOCATION OF READING dBA ,."dBA dBA . PREVIOUS CON’IACTSIHI STORY I’--] NO VIOLATION I"-I 1S-l WARNING F-] 2ND WARNING ~ CITATION COMMENTS I"=T- ~CER ID NO. WATCH DATE SUPERVISOR REVIEW DATE PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM LOCATION OF NOISE SOURCE DATE REPORTED DATE(S) OCCLIRRED DAY REPORTED DAY(S) OCCLIRRED DISTRICT BEAT CASE NO IME REPORTED IME(S) 0CCLIRRED :...~. : :.. ,,,: .., RP LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, V " ~’ ,I." ..i -’:" MI ADDRESS SUSPECT NAME ADDRESS PHONE PERSON(S) CONTACTED ADDRESS PHONE DESCRIPTIONISOURCE OF NOISE LOCAL AMB NOISE LEVEL dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA PREVIOUS CONTACTSIHISTORY VIOLATION ~ IST WARNING LOCATION OF READING L.-,~ 2NO WARNING ~ CITAT 10N COMMENTS ID NO.W AT CH DATE SUPERVISOR REVIEW.DAT E ATTACHMER~T 9 Application No. 89-UP-50: 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD~ WINTER LODGE Use Permit 89-UP-50 is hereby issued for the construction and use of a 4,700 square-foot addition and parking lot expansion for an existing outdoor recreation service use (The Winter Lodge) as per attached plansat 3009 Middlefield Road, Zone District PF, Palo Alto, California, and is subject to conditions listed below. CONDITIONS The applicant shall contract with a licensed acoustical engineer to provide average ambient noise levels in order to provide benchmarks to determine compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Ambient levels shall be established for morning, afternoon, and evening sound levels for weekdays and weekends. The ambient levels shall be established to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of any building permits, and will be used henceforth by the Police Department in enforcement of the Noise Ordinance. All other noise level conditions listed in this permit shall be verified by the acoustical engineer, and a report documenting compliance submitted to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to final of building permit. The mechanical equipment room shall be equipped with a self-closing door. prior to final building inspection. The mechanical equipment room shall be sound proofed to achieve a minimum four (4) decibel reduction with the door closed, from the 56 decibels documented in the sound report prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, dated June 15, 1989. This reduction shall be accomplished prior to final building inspection. The noise generated by the Zamboni machine shall be reduced by a minimum of five (5) decibels from the 66 decibels documented in the June 15, 1989, sound report prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates prior to final building inspection. If the~future new ice grooming machine (tractor type) planned for use on the indoor rink is quieter than the Zamboni, then the new machine shall be used for any ice grooming of the outdoor rink occurring after 9:00 p.m. An 8-foot-high redwood wall shall be installed along the entire eastern boundary and terminate along the northern property line near the boundary of the former Chuck Thompson Swim Center. This termination point shall be in a location adequate to buffer the sound from the outdoor rink. Said wall shall be constructed with at least 6"x6" posts with 2"x6" horizontal members.and I" thick vertical planks which overlap by a minimum of I inch. No gaps shall be allowed in the fence. Design of the wall shall be required to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board and installed prior to final building inspection. The wall is for purposes of ground floor noise attenuation and security to adjacent residential properties, and is required per Section 18.32.070(a)(2) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. UP8950 NL I19190 Page I of 3 Due to the excessive noise generated by the use of the outdoor rink for hockey,..this activity shall only be allowed between the hours of 9:00 ¯a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Use of the outdoor rink by more than six people shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. on weekends. Use of the outdoor rink shall be prohibited after 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and after 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. All outdoor lighting shall beshielded and directed in order to prevent light spillover into adjacent residential uses. A final lighting plan shall be required to be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of any building permits. 10.A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be required to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department,~prior to issuance on any grading and/or building permit. A 10-foot landscape buffer shall be installed between the project site and the easterly residential condominium development, per Section 18.32.070 (a) (3) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The final landscape plan shall be required to be approved by the Architectural Review Board. 12.The proposed new parking lot shown on the plans shall’be constructed as a temporary facility until such time as the City coordinates the initiation of clean-up of contaminated soil and groundwater. Once clean-up has been initiated, a permanent parking facility with a minimum of the-required 14 additional parking spaces shall be constructed. The final parking lot design may need to accommodate the future placement of an air stripping unit necessary for site remediation of hazardous material. NANCYUMADDOX LYTLE Zoning Administrator January 9, 1990 NOTE This Use Permit is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. In any case in which the conditions to ~he granting of a Use Permit have not been or not complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Use Permit. A Use Permit which has not been used within one (I) year after the date of granting become void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him before the expiration of the first year. UP8950 I/9/90 NL Page 2 of 3 Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Carol Jansen, Chief Planning Official Lynn Johnson, Assistant Chief of Police Bill Fellman, Real Properties Division Susan Case, Assistant City Attorney William Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jan Van der Laan, 3009 Middlefield, Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 John Bird, P.O. Box 1297, Palo Alto, CA 94302 G. Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 201, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Rd., No. 101, Palo Alto, CA S. V. McClymonds, 740 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Chris Morrisey, 3077 Middlefield Rd., No. 101, Palo Alto, CA Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Susan Kelso, 2125 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 The Winter Lodge, 3009 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 94306 94306 UP8950 NL 1/9/90 Page 3 of 3 June i, 1972 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Palo Alto Community Noise Ordinance Members of the Council: ATTACMMENT lO B ac kground Last summer the staff initiated a broad study of the problem of noise in Palo Alto, an issue which has been a growing concern to both citizens and City government for several years. The justification for this concern and for responsive City pro- grams is manifested in the innumerable instances each day when we all are exposed to objectionable, even damaging, levels of noise. A majority of these daily expo- sures are completely unnecessary and can be reduced or eliminated by conscientious efforts. In a report to the Council on September 2, 1971, a control program was proposed to deal with the noise problem in several phases. The key element iu this proposal was the enactment of a comprehensive Community Noise Control Ordinance, which is presented herewith for Council consideration and action. This report, in accompa- nying the proposed noise ordinance, is intended to provide background information as to its purpose, justification and implications. Introduction During the past six months the present form of the ordinance has evolved, ~ith several draft and revision cycles reflecting valuable input from both tH~ staff and outside acoustic cons~ultants. Additionally, an attempt has been made to .incorporate desirable features of noise ordinances already enacted in other communities and at the same time avoid some of their potential difficulties. Table 1 provides a compari- sonof key elements of several other municipal ordinances. A simple and understandable language is used throughout the proposed Palo Alto ordinance to aid comprehension by the average citizen. Unavoidably, some tech- nical details of the provisions may not be familiar to everyone, but these are minimal and only included as necessary to precision and unambiguous interpretation° The ordinance has been designed to provide municipal noise control authority which is tough, concise, enforceable, and comprehensive. Its intended and expected effect is a gradual but effective reduction of the disturbing and objectionable noises in the community by consistently focusing upon the abatement of the worst sources. The allowable decibel limits proposed are, without exception, compromises between CMR:304:2 Page Two desirable ’~ideal" noise levels and the practical limits imposed by presently available abatement techniques and alternative devices. All sections of the ordinance are based upon allowable maximum noise levels, which are either stated as absolute limits in decibels or as an allowable incremental increase in noise level over the natural background or ambient noise level. This means that judgmental and subjective factors, such as previously encountered in "disturbing the peace" incidents, are replaced by actual noise level measurements made with a City- owned sound level meter. These measurements then clearly indicate whether the ordinance has been violated. A number of persons will be trained to use the sound level meters properly and to handle various aspects of enforcing the noise statutes. Discussion of Basic Ordinance Provisions Because the environmental characteristics of various sections of the City differ depend- ing upon their intended use, the noise characteristics and, therefore, the noise ordi- nance provisions, also display these important distinctions. The noise limits are tailored according to their application in residential, cornrnercial and industrial or public areas. A light industrial area, for example, by its intended and actual use, is not as quiet as a residential area, nor should it be expected to be. On the other hand, residential areas are expected to be rather serene and free from noise encroachments. These differing expectations are incorporated in the structure of the ordinance. The basic provision in residential and cornrnercial areas provides that no source will raise the noi~se level more than a given amount above the Local Ambient (the minimum sound level or "background" noise level. ) In residential areas, for example, a typical daytime Local Ambient would be S0 dBA (decibels). No individual noise source would then be allo~ved to produce a noise level in this area of the City more than 6 dB above the normal level. This standard would apply equally to noise sources of all types -- people, stereos, animals and tools. IV[eeting this standard would be mandatory at night, although during the ’day a more lenient noise limit may be met instead (see Daytime exceptions). The 6 dB increment represents a doubling of the sound level, yet is restrictive of most types of noisy activity. In cornrnercial and industrial areas, an increment of 8 dB over the Local Ambient is allowed. Since in all cases we are interested primarily in protecting the nearby uninvolved citizen, the measurements to determine compliance with these limits are taken at any point outside of the property on which the noise source is located -- wherever an impact on an innocent party might OCCUr, On public property, each individual has an equal right to use and enjoy the available space, so the property line is not a useful enforcement device. In this instance, an increment of 15 dB over the Local Ambient at a distance of 25 feet from the noise source is allowed. This standard will permit normal individual and group activities such as routinely occur at public parks and playgrounds, but would limit excessively noisy inci- dents. It also insures that, beyond a distance of approximately 150 feet, the noise would not be noticeable. These three basic limitations on noise increases above the background level ~- in "1MR:304:2 Page Three residential, commercial and industrial, and public areas -- represent the primary control features of the ordinance. It would be extremely desirable if this was, by itself, a satisfactory scheme. However, practical realities require provisions for certain exceptions and special cases. Public Sound Performances and Special Events There are many types of events which take place in public areas and which, by their nature, exceed normal sound levels. Included in this category are parades, bazaars, speeches, and rallies. Since it is generally considered desirable to accommodate such events, restriction upon high noise levels which might be produced as a result of these activities must meet the test of reasonableness. Hence, special public events with a permit or other approval will be exempted from some provisions of the noise ordinance, suSject onlyto a maximum limit of 80 dBA at 50 feet from the location of the event. The permit review procedure for these events would include additional . factors such as location, duration, and time of day. Additionally, that section of the Parks Use Ordinance which allows amplified music at a level of 95 dBA at 50 feet in El Camino Park and the Baylands Athletic Center would still prevail. Motor Vehicles The most prominent class of noise sources in the cornrnunity is motor vehicles. The ambient noise level at any particular location depends almost exclusively i~pon its distance from major traffic routes, the traffic volume, and the average speed of vehicles using that street. Not only the background, but many of the peak noise levels are also due to vehidles. The California Vehicle Code has several regulations which the City Attorney advises have been ruled by the State Attorney General to pre-empt the field of vehicle noise on streets. Recent modification.to these laws will facilitate their enforcement in the community by local personnel, however. One amendment last year, for example, allows vehicle noise measurements to be made at less than a 50-foot distance, which had been a major difficulty in community enforcement efforts, where a 25-foot distance is more practical. Hence, improved efforts in enforcing State Vehidle Code noise limitations should provide improvement in noise levels on City streets. ’~-~Daytime Exceptions During the day from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., activities or equipment which do not produce a noise level exceeding 70 dBA at 25 feet are exempted from the more restrictive incremental standards. The flexibility to meet either the incremental limit at the property line or the noise limit for an individual device is valuable to those who must use noisy devices. The use of many types of labor-saving motorized tools is an example of an application of this exception. However, many of these devices, such as lav~n mowers and power tools, will require noise abatement in order to satisfy the noise limit of this section. Some methods ate presently available to reduce the aggravating noise levels produced by this equipfnent, and the City is participating in efforts to discover and develop new materials and techniques. IV[anufacturers are also becoming much more responsive to this need. CMR:304:2 Page Four Another possible approach to equipment noise control, which is necessarily initiated on a longer-time scale, would impose noise limits on the sale of new devices by the manufacturer. The Environmental Protection AgenCy is presently developing this type of standard to take effect within 5 to 8 years. To avoid a pre-emption conflict with future federal regulations and concentrate on more irnrnediate results, Palo Afro’s ordinance does not contain this type of limitation. Warning Devices Sirens. train horns, and simil.ar devices foremergency vehidles must meet minimum sound requirements by State law, but no maximums are included in these regulations. The City ordinance would limit any aural warning device to 3 dB in excess of the sound level required by law. Construction and Alteration The possession of a valid City building or alteration permit would grant a special exemption from the regular noise regulations for the activities covered hy the permit but would require complaince with either one of two special limitations: No individual pi4ce of equipment could exceed 83 dBA at 25 feet, or The total noise level beyond the property line should not exceed 86 dBA. This dual regulation allows the contractor considerable flexibility in his method of meeting the ordinance limits. For example, a contractor may be using a piece of equipment producing a noise level of 90 dBA at 25 feet, which violates the first provision. He may, however, place the equipment such that the noise level does not exceed 86 dlBA at the property line, thus satisfying both the letter and intent of Part b . On the other hand, some situations may require a machine to be placed nearly at the project boundary, exceeding the 86 dBA limitation. ]But if it produces a noise level of 83 dBA or’ less at a distance of 25 feet, it is within compliance° There are several City activities and devices which presently exceed the limits of the proposed noise ordinance. The most serious of these are the six tree chippers and the three leaf blowers utilized by the Parks Division. There are a variety of ways of dealing with these problems, all of which are being pursued at present. Several experimental abatement techniques are planned for these devices, to allow the City to take the lead in providing quieter alternatives for motorized equipment. Manufacturers and acoustic consultants have been contacted to solicit their assis- tance and suggestions. Some improvements have already been identified or incorpo- rated, including air compressors and the associated pneumatic tools such as pave- ment breakers and jack hammers. It is expected that approximately 20 per cent of the Environmental Specialist’s time will be spent on these specific noise abatement projects in the near future. Exception Permits The flexibility to allow selected events and temporary activities of which moderate noise levels are an inherent part is entailed in a noise permit system. This system Page Five would be designed (1) to provide permits to use necessary tools and equipment until noise abatement devices can be secured and installed, and (2) to allow selected one- time special events on private property even though such events could be expected to exceed the normal nog.se limits. The Lytton Plaza rock concerts would be author- ized by this type of a permit procedure. ~ Implications The inescapable impact of the enactment of this ordinance is that, in order to realize its intended benefits, many people will be required to quiet the noise sources for which they are responsible. The most corn_rnon example will be individuals who are driving vehicles with defective or altered exhaust systems or those with excessively loud power tools. Those persons causing such significant distrurbances may feel inconvenienced and imposed upon, but certainly no more imposed upon than their neighbors and other affected persons have felt previously. A new sensitivity and responsibility by all citizens will aid in achieving the noise abatement goals set by this ordinance. Wide support for the ordinance and the noise abatement program, not only among those impacted by noise but by those who are responsible for objec- tionable sources, can produce a striking improvement in the Pal. Alto environment. Implementation A.Enforcement Activities The key feature of the implementation and enforcement of the ordinance is a relatively high level of effort by one or more specific members of the Pal. Alto Police Department (and equivalent of one man full time at least during the initial nine to twelve months after enactment). The primary responsl- bilities of these noise control officers would be: Parrollin’g the’City with a noise meter, identifying sources in violation, and issuing warnings or citations. Responding to noise complaints, determining violations, and issuing warnings or citations. Setting up temporary vehicle noise monitoring stations to identify and cite vehicle violations. Additional implementation responsibilities would be handled by the Environ- mental Special.ist: Coordination and follow-up on enforcement procedures and activities by Police Department. Review of permit applications for exemption from noise ordinance in special cases. CMR:304:2 Page Six 3.Conducting routine tests of vehicles and equipment at citizen’s requests to determine compliance with ordinance without threat of legal action 4. Aiding <;itizen abatement efforts for specific types of equipment. These activities could be expected to require approximately 15 hours per week. The total annual cost of administering and enforcing the proposed program would approach $30,000 to $40,000. The extent to which these activities can be fully staffed will depend upon the other demands being placed upon police personnel and the Environmental Specialist and their respective priorities. In the Police Department in particular: this program will have to compete with such other current priorities as bicycle law enforcement, crime preven- tion efforts, and traffic law enforcement. Because of fixed staffing comple- ments, an emphasis in one of these areas must be met by counter-adjustments in one or more of the other areas. B.l~ablic Information In order to obtain maximum understanding and support of the objectives of the noise ordinance in the community, various methods will be utilized to provide citizens with appropriate in.formation. The new requirements being placed upon noise sources and the benefits to be gained will be explained using various media. The goal of self-enforcement, with persons demonstrating the sensitivity to voluntarily quiet their own noisy devices, will be encouraged and promoted through public information activities. Information will be made available through bulletins in the utility bill mailings, contacts with local organizations, discussions and forums with interested groups, and noise control workshops for citizens with noisy equipment. The Palo Alto noise ordinance has been developed with specific i’ntentional differ- ences from other noise ordinances, and it will require complementary unique methods of implementation and enforcement. Two goals have been especially important: (a) to achieve a law as simple, concise and understandable as possible and (b) to achieve a law as comprehensive and tough as reasonable noise control technology will allow. Because this ordinance is more demanding than most others, the City staff has undertaken the responsibility for identifying and demonstrating the methods by which the stated noise limits can be achieved. This is a large respon- sibility for which no municipal precedents have been discovered. Nevertheless, it is the only way in which the intentions of the community noise control program can be realistically fulfilled. The fact that a reduction in the objectionable noise levels in Palo Alto cannot be achieved without incurring significant costs by both City government and individual citizens cannot be over-emphasized. The staff recommends adoption of a community noise control program for Palo Alto by the enactment of the attached ordinance. To provide adequate opportunity for CMR:304:2 Page Seven detailed Council review and community reaction, it is suggested that the proposed Ordinance be referred to the Council’s Policy and Procedures Committee. submitted, CI4_ARLES E. WALKER Assistant City IVIanager (Acting) Reference:CMR:960:I ClViR:910 :I CIV[R: 304:2