Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-09-15 City Council (27)
City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment 6 AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 15, 1997 CMR:385:97 THREE APPEALS OF 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 RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Administrator decision for approval - be upheld and that the appeals be denied. It further recommends modifications and additions to the conditions of approval as presented in the attached draft conditions of approval (see Attachment 4 - Draft Conditions of Approval). The Commission based its recommendation primarily on the fact that, although the three acoustical consultants involved in the project presented conflicting opinions, enough data had been gathered for the Commission to conclude that the original Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate and that, with modified conditions of approval, the Use Permit should be approved (see Attachment 5 - July 30, 1997 Planning Commission meeting minutes). Staff Recommendation: Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that a new acoustical analysis be prepared because it believed that the acoustical analyses prepared to date were inconclusive. Staff continues to recommend this approach, with the acoustical consultant to be paid for by CSI, hired through the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP) process and to include an analysis of the items detailed in the "Discussion" section of the attached July 30, 1997 CMR:385:97 Page 1 of 7 Planning Commission report (see Attachment 5 - July 30, 1997 Planning Commission report). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Colnmunity Skating, Inc. (CSI) applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to redevelop the site, including refurbishing the four existing tennis courts and reorienting two of them, adding a fifth tennis court, and adding a passive park area and restrooms on the east side of the site. Spectator seating is proposed to be located in the area between courts 3 and 5. There would also be related landscaping and site improvements. PROJECT HISTORY The application for the Use Permit was made in January, 1996. The Zoning Administrator held public hearings in June, July and August 1996 and granted approval of the Use Permit, with conditions, on August 15, 1996. Three appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision were received on August 26, 1996 from surrounding neighborhood groups. The appeals were heard by the Commission at several hearings with final Commission action on July 30, 1997. A chronology of major events associated with the project is included in the attached July 30, 1997 Planning Commission report (see Attachment 7). SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Generally, the appeals were based on the belief that the noise analysis was incomplete; that a tennis facility is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses; that enforcement of the conditions will take too many City resources; and that the conditions Would not protect residents in the area and conditions similar to those attached to the YMCA remodel on Ross t~oad should be attached to this project. A detailed discussion of the issues raised by appellants and staff response to those issues is presented on pages 4 - 12 of the attached November 13, 1996 Planning Commission report (see Attachment 8). The primary concerns are presented in the following summary. Noise The concerns most emphasized by the appellantsand those which have taken the most time and discussion to clarify during the appeal process are the adequacy of the noise analysis and determining the extent of the impact on surrounding propel~es and what, if any, mitigation is needed. The applicant’s acoustical consultant has submitted five acoustical reports, including the original study and four supplemental studies, the last of which was submitted July 23, 1997, prior to the July 30, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. The July 23, 1997 supplement was intended to show that the General Daytime Exception (Section 9.10.060(a) of the Noise Ordinance), which state that activity which generates noise at or below 70 dBA between specific daylight hours is exempt from the Noise Ordinance, can be met for the facility and that the original mitigation measure and condition of approval requiring a six- foot-high sound wall along the north property line is not needed. CMR:385:97 Page 2 of 7 The appellant’s acoustical consultant has also submitted five reports, including responses to the applicant’s acoustical consultant. The appellant’s reports challenge the data and method of measuring noise levels that the applicant’s consultant used in his studies and supplemental reports. The appellant’s consultant fmds that a six-foot-high sound wall on the north property line would not adequately mitigate the noise from the tennis facility and states that inadequate study was conducted and the impact along the west and east property lines has not be accurately assessed. ’ Under the direction of the Planning Commission, staff hired, and CSI funded, a third, independent consultant to review all of the acoustical information presented regarding the project. The third-party consultant, although in agreement with the applicant’s acoustical consultant regarding measurement methodology, .did not believe that sufficient data had been provided to accurately assess the expected impact of the facility on neighboring properties. In addition, one of the appellants has submitted additional information disagreeing with the applicant’s acoustical consultant regarding the Daytime Exception (see Attachment 10 - letter from J. Abrahams, dated August 13, 1997). All acoustical studies, reports and responses submitted by all three acoustical consultants are attached to either this City Council report or the July 30, 1997 and November 13, 1996 Planning Commission reports. Intensity of Use The appellants believe that the proposed project would not result in a low-intensity use and would therefore be out of character with the surrounding residential uses. The appellant’s compare the proposal to a sports arena. Staff believes and the Commission concurred that 1) because use of the facility will be limited through a card-key system, 2) tournaments will be limited to two to four times a year for children, and 3) adult league play will only occur on all five courts approximately once a week, that the use will be low-intensity. Further, it is different from a sports arena in that it is not intended to accommodate large events on a regular basis or a number of different types of sporting events. Condition Enforcement The appellants believe that enforcing the conditions of the use permit would severely tax the City’s resources and that conditions similar to the YMCA remodel should be attached to the tennis facility. Staff believes and the Commission concurred that the conditions have been designed to enable the operator of the facility to handle complaints from affected parties and implement disciplinary measures for key-holders that violate conditions of approval. It is unlikely additional code enforcement or police resources would be needed to handle complaints from neighbors. Staffnotes that the YMCAproject was a major expansion of an existing facility with much greater usage than the proposed project. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the YMCA revealed many potentially significant impacts which CMR:385:97 Page 3 of 7 were not determined to result for this application through the mitigated negative declaration environmental analysis. BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTION As noted previously, staff and the Planning Commission came to different recommendations based on the adequacy of the acoustical information, The Commission found that, based on the addifio~nal analysis submitted by the applicant’s acoustical consultant, the General Daytime Exception could be met. A complete record of the Planning commission recommendation is included in the July 3 0, 1997 Planning Commission minutes attached to ¯ this report (see Attachment 7). The Commission included the following modifications to the Zoning Administrator recommended conditions of approval: Modify Condition 2 to make the hours of operation consistent with the Daytime Exception. Retain condition 9 that requires the applicant to construct a six-foot-high sound wall along the north property line. Add a condition requiring the applicant to appoint a neighborhood liaison that would be available to neighborhood residents during all business hours and special events if complaints were received. Add a condition requiring the applicant to hold regular meetings with surrounding neighborhood residents. Add a condition requiring a second lock be added to all entry and exit gates and an employee of the facility be required to close the facility each night. Move Court 5 ten feet southward (i.e. closer to the Winterlodge facility) and move bathrooms to a location between Courts 3 and 5. Applicant Response to Commission Actions In a letter from Linda Jensen, dated August 19, 1997 and attached to this report, the applicant requested several changes based on the actions of the Planning Commission. They are: Remove Condition 9 that requires construction of the sound wall, since acceptance of the acoustical data no longer requires construction of the wall; Remove the requirement for a neighborhood liaison as being duplicative of Zoning Administrator Condition 5; Remove that requirement that regular neighbor meetings be held in a neutral place such as City Hall, but, if not removed, require that a City facilitator be present; C1VIR:385:97 Page 4 of 7 Remove the requirement for second locks as being burdensome and presenting a safety issue; and Retain Court 5 in its proposed location because moving it would violate fire access. Staff Comments on Applicant Request ’ As noted previously, staff does not believe that sufficient acoustical information exists and recommends further study, therefore, retention of the wall is still subject to discussion. Staff would recommend retention of the wall in any case, due to aesthetic and privacy issues. Staff concurs, however, with the remainder of the Planning Commission recommendations and provides these additional comments. Staff believes that neighborhood meetings and a liaison are appropriate and recommends that the meetings be held on or near the site for ease of access to all participants. City staff has not previously done meeting facilitation and should not do so on a regular basis since the intent of the condition is not to insert staff in disputes between neighbors but to encourage cooperative dialogue and solutions by the affected parties. The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the use of a double- lock system is not a safety issue provide it is designed to allow emergency personnel entrance at all times. Finally, per the Fire Department, Court 5 may only be relocated approximately seven feet southward in order to ensure that fifteen feet of clearance remains for emergency access. Attached to this report is a draft set of conditions of approval, with the Planning Commission recommendations shown in italics. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The two policies pertinent.to this application are Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element and Policy 11, Program 35 of the Environmental Resources Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element states that privately- sponsored community activities should be encouraged. The tennis facility will be operated by a private entity that will provide a community activity for a minimal yearly fee. Although the facility may be limited to a specific number of patrons and it may be run on a "not-for profit" basis, it will still meet this policy objective in that is a privately sponsored facility on city-owned land and represents a cooperative effort between the two entities. Policy 11 of the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protect residents from unnecessary noise. Program 35 of the same Element provides recommended standards for daytime noise levels. The acceptable indoor standards are 50 dBA and outdoor standards are 65 dBA. CMR:385:97 Page 5 of 7 ALTERNATIVES The City Council could deny the Use Permit based on the lack of sufficient acoustical information and the applicant’s refusal to pay for additional study. Draft findings for denial of the Use Permit are attached to the report. FISCAL IMPACT . There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of any of the above actions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A Negative Declaration was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on May 31, 1996 (see July 30, 1997 Planning Commission staff report). The Negative Declaration may be amended as a result of another acoustical analysis being completed for the project. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If the City Council directs staff to hire, and the applicant agrees to fund, another acoustical consultant to conduct further noise studies, the item will need to beagendized to return to the City Council for review and final action at a date after completion of the additional analysis. ATTACHMENTS 1.Site Location Map 2.Draft findings for Use Permit denial 3.Draft f’mdings for Use Permit approval 4.Draft conditions of approval (Planning Commission recommendations in italics) 5.Planning Commission minutes, dated July 30, 1997 6.Corrections to July 30, 1997 Planning Commission minutes submitted by J. Abrahams 7.Planning Commission staff report, dated July 30, 1997, with attachments 8.Planning Commission staff report, dated November 13, 1996, with attachments 9.Supplemental acoustical information, dated July 23, 1997, submitted by Pack and Associates 10. Letter from J. Abraham, dated August 13, 1997 11. Letter from Natalie Fisher, Received August 18, 1997 12. Letter from Linda Jensen, dated August 19, 1997 13. Newspaper Articles from the Palo Alto Daily News, san Jose Mercury News, and the Palo Alto Weekly 14. Letters in opposition to the Use Permit 15. Letters in support 0fthe Use Permit 16. Letter from John Abraham, dated September 5, 1997 Plans (City Council Members only) CMR:385:97 Page 6 of 7 CC:Linda Stebbins Jensen, Director, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto, Attn: Janet Freeland, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Mami 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, Paid Alto, CA 94303 Stephanie McClymonds, 740 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei-Dhein Tung, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 George Stem, 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 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: HARR!SON Assistant City Manager C!V[R:385:97 Page 7 of 7 Attachment 1 RM-30 PARK TOWLE PL CO~PER ROSS .STREET F’roje~t: 3009 Mi~bllefiel~l Roa~l Appeal of Zonin~j A~lmini~trator approval of Con~litional Use Permit for a private out,toot recreation service (t~nnis facility) r~ "r 731 HOLLY OAK ORIV Scale: 1 inch = 400 FT ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF 96-UP-1 The proposed use at the proposed location will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicimty, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that the acoustical analysis for the project does not sufficiently verify that noise impacts on surrounding property can be mitigated to meet the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code); and The proposed use will not be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the acoustical analysis for the project does not sufficiently verify that noise impacts from the use can be mitigated to meet the standards stated in Program 35 of the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. S:[PlanlPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Attachment 3 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 improvement~ 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 by the 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. S Aplan\pladiv\cmr~mds.lg September 15, 1997 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 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. 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). 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 da~ 8:00p.m. Monday through Samrda~ Friday and 9:00 a.m. to ~ 8:00 p.m. on Smada7 Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. 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. o An individual user of the facility who violates the hours of operation more than twice shall have 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. _ _..,._~_,__,,~_ ___ ..,_t,_ The applicant shall a_~ooint 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 shall be provided the authori~, to correct any violation of the use permit conditions and to make every _eOfort to avoid disturbances to the neighbors. 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 Palo Alto Planning Division and shall be made available by the operators of the tennis facility to any interested party upon request. Neighbors disturbed by noise during business S :\plan~pladiv\emr\conds.lg September 15, 1997 Page 1 10. 11. 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 five trees to be removed from the site shall be replaced with ten new trees planted in the park and areas adjacent to the surrounding residential uses. In addition, the applicant shall replace the three existing gravelly parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of all replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The applicant shall implement the recommendation on page 5 of the acoustical analysis done for the project, dated April 8, 1996 hereby incorporated by reference, to require the applicant to construct a six-foot high wall along the entire length of the north property line. If all or a portion of the existing fence is to be used, the applicant shall show that the fence section is at least 6 feet above the finished elevation of the tennis courts and that is complies the requirement to be air-fight. All other fencing on the site shall be constructed as shown on the plans received April 2, 1996, on file in the City of Palo Alto Planning Division office. All sound walls shall be reviewed by the ARB as part of their review of the project. A row of evergreen trees shall be planted along the edge of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement between the tennis courts and Matadero Creek such that a planting screen is provided between the courts and the residences on the other side of the creek. The tree species and spacing shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Final landscape and irrigation plans for the entire tennis, facility site shall be reviewed by the ARB and the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the Utilities Department and shall be subject to all conditions attached by the ARB and Marketing Division. Installation of an irrigation-only water meter shall be required. 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. 12.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 properties are not altered (per Section 16.28.270 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). S:\plankpladiv\cmr\conds.lg September 15, 1997 Page 2 13.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. 14.The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 15.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. 16.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. 17.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 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. 18.The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB and shall be as accessible as possible. 19.The developer shall call USA at (800) 642-2444 to mark any underground electric facility. 20.Recycling containers shall be provided in the picnic area and shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB. 21.Tree protection methods to be used during construction shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division staff and the ARB. 22.The project shall be in compliance with all handicapped access standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspections Division. S:~lafftpladiv\cmr\conds.lg September 15, 1997 Page 3 23.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. 24.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). ,25.The applicant shall schedule regular meetings with the neighborhood, to be held 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. 26.During the first year of o.oeration of the facili~. . there shall be on-going noise monitoring to ensure that the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 Of ¢he PAMC) is. bein~ met. This testing shall be.funded by the o_oerator of the facili~, and shall occur during regular business hours as well as during tournaments for childrcrt and adult regular league play.. If the Noise Ordinance is not being met, the Zoning Administrator shall hold a publicly noticed public hearing to review the use permit and determine whether the permit shouM be revoked or modO~¢d ¢o require additional noise mitigation, (Recommended by staff if condition 9, which requires a noise wall along the north property line is removed by the City Council) 27.Tennis court #5 shall be moved ten feet closer to the ex&ting Winterlodge building on the adjacent site. 28.The restrooms on the site shall be moved to a location between courts 3 and 5. 9.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. 30.The pertinent requirements of Chapter 9.10, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall be enforced at all times. S :kplan\pladiv\cmr\eonds.lg September 15, 1997 Page 4 EXCERPT of minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission meeting of July 30, 1997 Attachment 5 The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairperson Cassel presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojaldan, Schink and Schmidt None Staff Present:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney William Fellman,-Manager, Real Property Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Consultants Present: Robert Berman, Berman-Nichols Richard Rodldn, Illingworth & Rodldn O~L COMMUNICATIONS Chai~ers.~Cassell The first item on our agenda is oral communications. At this time, any member ofth~blic may speak to any item not on the agenda. Seeing no one who wishes to speak, we will m~nto~ thenext agenda item. 1.. Approval ~f P_larming Commiss~nutes of June 18, 1987. Chal?~s;n C__a8.$i: Our ~ity att°rney’ Ms" Ca .~ "c°mment" ’ Ms. Cau~e_v!sit.the mires of June 18 which you had already appr~i.ew for yottr fin~tion on the Comprehensive Plan, I.no~und l’.~.e I said.’~etl~.", g that is the opposite of what ~_approve those minute~th a modification on P e th _ pa ,_whero we are about the issue of ’ wheth~ld be included in the ~p~prehensive Plan. sT~u2 ch Ians~gnU~ncgee of such language e.~k~n__~L~ any lack of commitment on the part of the city." I d A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 3 07-30-97 r~ctfully request that that change be made to those minutes. ’ MOTIOn: Commissioner Schink: I would move approval of those minutes of June 18th as amended. ~. SECOND: By Co~mner Ojakian. , .MOTION PASSES: Cha~rson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? Allthosein favor, say aye. AII~? That passes on a vote of 7-0. ’ 2" Approval ofPlanning Com~ Minutes ofJune 25, 1997. ¯ MOTION: C°mmissi0n~r Schink: i m°ve~al °f the minutes °f June 25, 1997. ~E_CO? :_ B~ C°mmissi~ner Schmidt"~ ’ ~ Cassel.. Is there any fi~r discussion on this motion? All ?se in fav°r’ .sa.y a_Y?: All °P~°sed?. Th. at p .asses °n ~ v0te~ _A_pp~oval ~f ~lanning Commission Minutes of July 2, 1997~ ?O_T_I?: Commissi~n~rSchink: i move approval of the minutes of July~7. those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 7-0.". _ PUBLIC HEARINGS 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: Appeal of the zoning administrator’s approval of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) on the site of the former Chuck ’Thompson Swim and Tennis ’Club, including the reodentation 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. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration was approved on May 31, 1996. File Nos. 96-UP- I, 96-EIA- 1. MS. Bialson.: (Commissioner Bialson was not able to participate on this item) I am stepping down for failure to have looked at the entire public record prior to this time. A:[PCMins71PC0730.reg Page 4 07-30-97 Chairperson Cassel: This item has been before us in the past a number of times. We last saw the item on the 29th. I would recommend that we hear from the applicant and each appellant for five minutes to discuss the noise and sound studies and from any members of the public who wish to discuss the sound study for two minutes. If there is someone in the audience who has not spoken at all to this issue, that they be given a moment to speak. Then both the appellants and the applicant be given an opporttmity to sum up their comments. We normally do that for five minutes for each of them. That would cover any item ~ey wish to cover. We have never closed. this public hearing, so we need to allow people to sum up what they are saying at this time. We will then close the public hearing and bring the item back to us for discussion. If we wish to continue the itemto do further sound studies, we could make a motion to do so. We would then reopen the public heating and continue it. Otherwise, we would proceed with the discussion and come to some conclusions as to how we would like to proceed. That will give us an oppommity to make any general comments we may need to make, because at this point, we have been focusing entirely on the sound studies, and we may have some other comments that we wish to make. Let us now hear the staff comments. Ms. Grote: Thank you, Chair Cassel. I will be very brief and point out the pages in your report which basically summarize the issues. They are on Page 6, and the issues that Illingworth and Rodkin, the ftrm that was hired to do the independent third study, have found to be in agreement with Edward L. Pack Associates original and then amended studies are outlined on Page 6. If the commission directs staff, and the applicant agrees to fund any additional acoustical analysis, the assumptions that staff recommends should be part of that .analysis are included on Pages 10 and 11 of your staff report. There are seven of those assumptions. You may want to ask specific questions about those, however, I will not go into them in the interest of time. I would like to introduce Rich Rodkin from Illingworth and Rodkin~ ’He is here to furnish specific information about the noise analysis, and also Bill Fellman from our Real Estate Division is here ff you have questions about the lease agreement. In addition, I would like to point out that additional information was submitted by Edward L. Pack Asso~ia’tes on Friday. That was copied and put at your places, so you have that additional acoustical analysis.. Also, John Abraham and Natalie Fisher, who are co-appellants, did provide additional information that was put at your places. There is also a reduced site plan at your places for,easier reference. We are recommending that either an additional acoustical analysis be done or that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for denial based on inconclusive acoustical studies. That concludes the Staff report.¯ Chairperson Cassel: We have a number of items before us. We have information from Edward L. Pack Associates dated July 23. There is an item dated July 2nd but received July 29th that starts "Mr. James Gilliland" at the top and signed by John Abraham. We also have a set of Planning Commission minutes of November 20th. Ms. Grote: That was provided to you because one of the appellants noted that in my summary of major events, I had not included the November 20th hearing. I had not done so because no A:IPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 5 07-30-97 action was taken. It was continued to January 29th. I wanted to provide those minutes for you. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions ofstaffat this time? (None) Then this is the time for the applicant to come forward to present the information on the sound study. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, Palo Alto.: I am director of Community Skating, Inc. (CSI). The applicant’s presentation is going to be divided into three parts. I am going to make a brief summary of what has happened to get us here tonight. The executive director will speak a bit on the program, and then our sound consultant will conclude with a few remarks. Over three years ago, CSI responded to an RFP from the City of Palo Alto to provide a swim and tennis program on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Club. In deference to the neighbors’ concerns about noise, the City Council revised the program to exclude swimming, and limited the tennis program to daylight hours. As required by the conditions of the lease options that the City Council granted,CSI applied for a conditional use permit. The city’s zoning administrator recommended approval of the use permit application that CSI submitted well over 18 months ago. That decision was appealed by the neighbors, and CSI was required to pay for a ~tudy by an independent sound consultant. As staff indicated to you, the study by the independent sound consultants, Illingworth and Rodkin, determined the correctness of the basic findings of CSI’s own sound consultant. CSI believes that nothing will be gained by any further study. Our sound consultant, Jeff Pack, is here tonight to report that the additional maximum noise level measurements taken in the last few weeks will confirm that the sort of tennis program that CSI proposes to offer to the community will certainly meet.the 70 dba allowed by the general daytime exemption. We want to ask you to approve the zoning administrator’s original recommendation and issue t2SI a conditional use permit. The City Council will then be able to finalize the lease which will permit the community to enjoy the recreational activities that voters overwhelmingly approved almost 12 years ago when they passed Measures A’and B with the largest landslide in Palo Alto history. Linda Jensen, Executive Director of the Winter Lodge program, is going to speak now on the program that we propose on the site. Linda Jensen. 3009 Middlefield R,~ad, Palo Alto: I am going to take just a few minutes to summarize the type of tennis program CSI is proposing to run. As you probably know, the winter Lodge has won national awards and recognition for its high quality youth skating school. This is a skill building, recreationally oriented program that is not of a high intensity, competitive nature. CSI proposes to stick to our knitting, so to speak, and do what we do wall, namely, providing ’a high quality tennis program geared toward children’s recreation and skill building. We have no intention of running a high end, high intensity program. This is against everything that we endorse for our children’s programs. Because of the strict limitations already imposed by the council in consideration of the neighborhood, including no lights, no sound system, and keyed or supervised use, this type of low-key, low-intensity recreational program that we are proposing will be a good fit. Common sense tells us, and recent studies show, that A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 6 07-30-97 tennis is not a noisy sport. In addition, according to tennis experts, spectator noise or distractions to players are frowned upon at any time, especially during tournament play. In support of these facts, when asked recently, the Palo Alto Police Department had no record of any noise complaints ever regarding tennis play anywhere in the city. The courts in question tonight have been in use for over 42 years. CSI has also agreed to limit the hours of tennis operation to conform to the daytime exception, as noted on Page 9 of the staff report. As you know, this is the part of the noise ordinance which legally allows kids and adults alike to enjoy outdoor sports in our city, like soccer, baseball, and basketball, without being held to the noise ordinance restrictions. In essence, this is how we are legally allowed to have fun outside during the day in Palo Alto. The report on your desk tonight and our sound consultant, Mr. Pack, will show that the program we are proposing will fit well within the daytime exception to the noise ordinance. He will speak next. Jeffrey K. Pack. Edward L, Pack Associates, 1398 Blossom Hill Road. Los Oatos: Last week, after a couple of conversations with Mr. Rodldn, I made some further sound measurements at the Winter Lodge. You have that four-page report on your desk, if you would mm to Page 3 and the table. The Winter Lodge has decided to go with the daytime exception by changing their hours. With that exception, the noise sources are limited to 70 dba at a distance of 25 feet. What we did was to take the tennis, pro, Mr. Bill O’Brien, and the four kids that were playing there. The oldest of the four was a 14-year-old girl who is highly ranked in Northern California. She is a pretty decent.player. I asked both them to serve the ball as hard as they could. I measured off25 feet and took several samples of each of those people, the pro, the youth, and the third column is some volleying between two of the younger people 161aying. You can see that Mr. O’Brien was able to hit the ball higher than 70 dba on three occasions -- 70.3, 71.5 and 73.2. He was trying very, very hard to hit the ball that loud. It took him a e.ouple of shots to warm up, then hit these three over 70 dba, and with all due respect to him, bestarted to fatigue and was unable to hit the ball that hard anymore. You can see that at normal playing, the limit is going to be below 70 dba, therefore the daytime exception would apply, and the limits of the noise ordinance would no longer be in effect. Commissioner Schink: Can you conceive of any mitigation measures that would knock the sound down to an acceptable level if pros were playing on the court? Mr. Pack: It would depend upon who the pros are. I am sure that if Pete Samperson showed up, we would get some fairly high noise levels. It is hard to tell about it at a pro level. Mr. O’Brien is considered a pro, and he is going to hit the ball about as hard as anyone else. It depends upon what you mean by an acceptable level. Do you mean getting the noise levels down to 70 dba at 25 feet, or are you talking about applying the noise ordinance limits on those noise levels? Commissioner $chink: In compliance. A:[PCMins71PC0730.reg Page 7 07-30-97 Mr. Pack: With the regular noise ordinance limits? Commissioner Schink: With the daytime exception limits. Mr. Pack: There would be a little difficulty in doing that, because that is the distance at 25 feet. We have a larger distance than that from where they play to the nearest residential property line. The nearest distance would be 46 feet. So it would be,hard to correlate those two directly when you are just applying that on an engineering type basis. I would have to know more about what you are trying to achieve to determine what kind of mitigation you are looking for. Any kind of sound wall will, of course, help reduce noise. By how much depends upon the height of the wall ¯ and the distances from where they play to where the receiver is. Commissioner Schink: What I was looking for was, if they have wind screens on the tennis courts, is that going to cut down on the noise at all? Mr. Pack: No, those won’t do anything. It needs to be an air-impervious barrier. Commissioner Schink: Or no pros playing on the court? Mr. Pack: Or no pros playing on the court. John K. Abraham. 736 Ell~worth place, Palo Alto: The report that Mr. Rodkin prepared has discussed theissues in great detail. I appreciate his efforts in this difficult problem. There are a lot of controversial issues, some of which I was not aware of until I read his report. I do think it is an excellent report. The decision in the matter ofwhether to use peak or fast readings was decided by Mr. Rodkin in favor of fast readings. At this point, as far as I know, that issue is not involved here. We are .using fast readings. Nevertheless, he found some other issues which perhaps are much more important that that. I would jtist like to review his findings, some of them at least. He has pointed out the local ambient. There is some question as to whether that is correct. Mr. Pack’s numbers for the miaimum ambient level was 41 decibels, and the smallest possible number is 40 decibels. I don’t know that it is worth making a great fuss about one decibel, so that seems to be an issue that is decided. Mr. Rodkin did say he would prefer or recommend that Commercial limits be used here rather than Public Facility. Public Facility adds 15 decibels to those 41 decibels, while the Commercial limits only add eight decibels. Staffhas decided that Public Facility is the ruling that is to be used here, so we have a 56 decibel limit for the facility. That recommendation of Mr. Rodkin’s was not accepted by the staff, but we feel that Mr. Rodkin was correct about that, and we support his recommendation. The general daytime exception is a rather controversial portion involving 70 decibels at 25 feet. I would point out that the important phrase is that the measurements have to be made at its most A:[PCMins71PC0730.reg Page 8 07-30-97 noisy condition. That is very important, and that is reading fight from Section 9.10.060. If there is any attempt to use the daytime exception, please bear in mind that phrase "at its noisiest." I don’t know exactly what that means, and it is not up to me to determine that, but I feel that it does mean taking into account five courts, not just one court, but five different courts. On my own (and Mr. Rodkin seemed to agree), it is fair to include human voice sounds. Noise from people. I very much agree with this. Staff has decided that because the noise ordinance does not talk about voice noise, it is not admissible. Mr. Rodkin, at least in’ his April report, supports the idea of voice noise.. It is important, and I wholeheartedly agree with him on that. As a practical matter, in his discussion on CEQA in his April 15th report, it basically says that the city is using too restrictive a set of criteria. The noise ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan are far too restrictive from our appellant’s point of view. Mr. Rodkin would seem to agree with that. I am in complete support.of that. We do feel that voice noise is very much a real problem. Next I would like to go to the recommendations. Mr. Rodkin apparently had a hand in setting these up in the staff report, Page 11, Item 6. That is a very important statement for us as residents. It determines what kind of noise measurements are going to be made in the future. Basically, I am saying it needs a little work. I passed out a handout to you that has the noise ordinance, and the picture underneath shows a schematic of the courts. I would point out that Mr. Pack used the noise measurements at the boundary, which I feel is important. It is a fair way to proceed, but not to go 20 feet into the back yard and then take measurements. That was more harmful than anything Mr. Pack did, and I really to object to that wording in Item 6. Perhaps this is a suggested wording. I would prefer that you take the measurements at the boundary where the mitigation would be, if there is going to be a mitigation. I don’t know that yet. I won’t know until the measurements are there. But since that is "~here the mitigation is going to be, I would please ask that you consider taking the measurements there. That is very important..The way it reads now is they- want to go up to 25 feet in the back y.ard. I thank you for your consideration of this. Chainperson Cassel: I take it you did not want Dr. Salmon at this time, since you used up your allotted time. David Bukhan, 307.3 Middlefield Road, #204, Palo Alto: They have definitely changed the roles. They decided to go with an exception. I remember when you started this hearing, you announced that it would be a quasi-judicial hearing based on the noise ordinance and other city ordinances. I think that all of the noise measurements stated that the proposed facility will not be in compliance withthe city’s noise ordinance. If the city side wants .to use an exception, I think it would be reasonable to consider that the exception is an exception, so by no means, at any time, any people, any players,.pros or kids or any other sources of noise should not exceed the exception level. I am asking the question, who is going to enforce this? We have this trouble with the Winter Lodge. Let me tell you that in all the noise measurements that the Palo Alto police made, the noise actually never went up above 67 or 68 dba. I would say it is practically A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 9 07-30-97 impossible to determine the actual impact. The only thing I want to remind you is that in wintertime, we keep our windows closed. That is the only tb_ing that saves us. So if you want to allow 70 dba not as an exception but as a regular noise level on an everyday basis, that is unacceptable. Secondly, the city ordinance clearly states that it show limits for repetitive noise. This is obviously repetitive noise. It was compared to gun shots. I don’t think that anyone who wrote the City Council ordinance thought that gun shots would be repet!tive. The noise from tennis balls is definitely repetitive. I do ask you to consider using noise ordinance limits instead of exceptions. There is a special issue of the fifth court. If the city wants to somehow reduce the noise impact, it would be reasonable not to go with the fifth court. The fifth court is a separate issue, to some extent. It is new construction. It does not exist today. If it is new construction, there should be different rules imposed to conform to an environmental report for new construction. Obviously, the fifth court will add noise to this facility, and I would ask you to include in the recommendations a statement about the fifth court and perhaps to build this fifth court, to use different rulesfor the fifth court. In all ofthe materials from Pack and Associates, the maximum noise levels were averaged over one second. It clearly stated in another report that the averaging should be done over 1/8 of a second. I am not familiar with the latest measurements, but that is definitely something that requires additional studies if one-second averaging was still used. Obviously, it.does not make sense to measure noise if only one court is in use. If this is peak noise, it makes perfect sense. If this is average noise, obviously four or five courts shbuld be used. They all add up. That is what should be used. None of the measurements of four courts were used. Once again, you are talking about exceptions, fight? If the noise ordinance is exceeded, then the exception should not be exceeded. So what I would ask you to include in your recommendation is with further measurements, to use four courts or go to Stanford or Mitchell Park and make measurements there to compare. Diana Wie_maer. 3069 Middlefield Road, #101, Palo Alto: I am probably the least affected by the noise. I am probably one of the farthest units away from the tennis courts. A few weeks ago, I was aware that I could hear someone playing, t dould hear the whack of the ball. Itwasn’t terrible, but there were probably only. two or three people maybe. My question is, I do not understand why the tennis club wants to put in five courts in this very close space where there are so many neighbors who are going to be very negatively impacted, when there are so many parks with tennis courts. We have the city that gives tennis lessons to children and adults. I am sure all the towns around here give tennis lessons. I have the feeling it is not the tennis lessons that is the focus here. Maybe it is the tennis tournaments, which is why they need the fifth court. The tennis tournaments are certainly going to have a lot more noise impact than a few kids being given a tennis lesson. I have to say I agree with Mr. Bukhan. You have to measure with five A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 10 07-30-97 tennis couits playing a tournament to measure accurately and fairly. Why impact all of the residents for this group, especially when this is not a moneymaker. They have admitted that the winter activities are going to have to fund the summer activities. So what is the point of all this? That is what I would like to know. This is not a community resource. This is for some tennis players that want to join a tennis club, and in fact, the tennis club has had an ad running for several days in the Palo Alto Weekly asking for members. Why do they have to advertise?. I don’t think we need this. Rufina Burton, 3073 Middlefield Road #102, Palo Alto: I have another point to bring up -- the park. I am thinking about radios, now called boom boxes in a park. The youngsters can play those things, and there will be no jurisdiction or anyone to regulate the noise from that, and add that to the noise from the sounds of the tennis tournaments and the sound of the playing of tennis. It will be pretty detrimental to our quality of life. It was not there when we moved there. Margaret Zuanich. 4025 Laguna Avenue, Palo Alto: I do not live on Middlefield Road. I just want to say that I feel that as a community, we voted several years ago to make this parcel a part of our recreational facilities. We knew there were tennis courts there. We, as a community, decided that it was a good place to continue recreation. I am sorry for the people who have moved in since that happened, and I don’t know why there were condominiums spread around this area, but in fact, that is not the problem for the CSI people. I completely support their attempts to put in tennis courts. They have jumped through all of the hoops, and I think it is time that the city allow people who in good faith want to do something to go ahead and. do it. Thank you. Dr. Vincent Salmon, 765 Hobart Avenue, Menlo P~k: I just have a few remarks concerning the difficulties that you have. In assessing annoyance, the intent of engineers is hopefully to get a single number representing the degree of annoyance. This is impossible, since there are so many factors that they do not consider. In tennis ball impaei noise, you have, first of all, the startle effect, a sudden increase in sound l~vel when there wasn’t anything there before, or very.little. The second factor is one that, to my.knowledge, has never been put in any quantified form, the fact that these sounds do not come from one source, but many, scattered around erratically and sporadically. We do know that if sounds are unpredictable, they are more annoying, so the problem is how do you take care of this. Well, we haven’t in any ordinance that I know of. In this case, we do have a problem in that the ordinance specifies two sorts of limits. The limit of the sound in the property plane, the police department has assured me, is one which if that limiting level is exceeded at any point in the property plane, then it is out of Compliance. A noise wall would have to be very high to make sure that the distances have been increased from the sources to make sure ~at these sound levels were within the limit specified as a limit. The second problem is, of course, the measurement at 25 feet. This was intended for compact machinery where 25 feet meant you had a Unique distance from the source to the receiver. In this ease, there is none, because the source jumps around, so you have the problem, how do you A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page I 1 07-30-97 account for this? Well, all I point out is that it is more annoying when it does jump around. We have no numbers to indicate that, so my opinion is that this should be taken account of in your assessment of the situation. Thank you. Commissioner Schink: You referenced something called the startle effect. Are there any communities around that have noise ordinances which have provisions to account for the startle effect? , Dr. Salmon: To my knowledge, no. Commissioner Schink: Could you tell us some of the areas in the Pack and Associates noise study where you agree with it? There must be some areas where the two of you agree, and could you suggest what those are? Dr. Salmon: The measurements at 25 feet for a source that is indicative of the maximum sound level that would be produced is a valid measurement for that exception part of the ordinance. Measurements to be made, however, at the property plane, should be made with a source as close as possible tO the property plane. In this case, it would be the serve made by a person able to hit the ball with some maximum intensity. I am not sure whether that was covered. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Cotwt, Palo Alto: I felt that CSI, in order to make more money, are setting this up at our expense. Two of the proposed tennis courts for first class tournament use will be 20 feet from my fence and my neighbor’s fence. So besides the noise, I don’t really agree with Mr. Rodldn’s report, because his reason is really not logical. I was thinking that an elementary school student can tell that, so I don’t knrw why staff recommended it. I am sorry to say that. Another thing I want to point out is the safety. Our fence is only 20 feet from both tennis courts, and my neighbor’s fence also. I often pic.k up tennis balls .from my back yard. Actually, I do not have to buy tennis balls, because I have so many. That is a safety issue, because during tournaments, bails can fly over the iron fence around the tennis court into my back yard. During tournaments, the adult player can l~.’t harder, and it could break my windows or hit someone in my back yard or my neighbor’s back yard. So it is very dangerous. Twenty feet is so dose, and it is not the standard in Palo Alto. This is a good place tO live, but 20 feet is such a low number to go by. Thank you. Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: I am a long-time resident of Palo Alto, and I am currently Vice President of the Palo Alto Tennis Club. I believe I am the one who started this whole thing, because my interest goes back to 1990 and my first contact with the city and Janet Freeland on the city staff. I also started to work with the Palo Alto Tennis Club in trying to get something to happen with these courts. A few years later, I was the one who wrote the proposal in response to the RFP that the city put out. One of the main reasons I took the initiative to do that was because I sincerely feel that there is no other place for kids to go and get lessons the way the Winter Lodge staff would teach. I know that the city has recreational programs, but the A:IPCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 12 07-30-97 Winter Lodge has a very unique teaching method that I think would be Very beneficial to the young kids in the area. That is the main reason why I took the initiative to try and make something happen with these courts. Wayne Liu, 3069 Middlefield Road, #203, Palo Alto: I am the Vice President and Treasurer of the homeowners association at 3067 through 3077 Middlefield Road. I am speaking tonight solely as a resident and recent home buyer worried about how my climate is going to change if this passes. Many of the units in our complex are thre~ stories high. There is a plan to build a higher fence, but noise dissipates and kind of scatters. I know from the winter that even when the noise does not surpass the allowed decibels, I have double pane windows in my condo which supposedly were paid for by the Winter Lodge. I knew that when I bought the house, so I knew that the noise levels were relatively high, but still legal within the city ordinances. My concern is what will happen if this is year round. The noise research work that was done did not seem to put all five courts together on a.consistent basis where you have balls bouncing all around and people running, and possible crowds cheering for the tournaments. That is a concern, and based on our homeowners association meetings, I think everyone inthe complex, which is 24 units, all agree and we are all worried. I moved to Palo Alto because of the standard of living here and the quality of life. I am afraid that that climate in which I invested and enjoy is going to end. Commissioner Ojakian: You said you are a recent resident. How long have you lived there? Mr. Liu: I bought my unit, which is exactly adjacent to the Winter Lodge, in late August of last year. Commissioner Ojakian: I am curious about what type of disclosure statements were iia your agreement. ~: They disclosed very clearly that in the winter, there is quite a bit of noise. The owner before me actually had a lawsuit with the Winter Lodge based upon the noise. They settled out of court, I think, and included in the settlement were the double pane windows which I keep shut all winter. ¯ Commissioner O_iakian: Was there any.disclosure about the potential of tennis courts? ~: No, absolutely not. I recently joined the board in late March, and that was the first time I heard about these plans. That is why I am here tonight. It alarmed me. I could deal with the Winter Lodge and ice skating. I am a tennis player myself, and I know how noisy five courts can be if you have five games going at once with a possible tournament in one and a crowd of 100 people. You cannot have a crowd of 100 people and not make noise. It is impossible. That may happen in a library, but not outdoors playing tennis. A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 13 07-30-97 Commissioner Schink: While there was no disclosure about the existing tennis courts that were there, did you not notice that there were existing tennis courts there when you bought your condo? Mr. Liu: From my place, I cannot see them. The proposed fifth court will be very close, and there is a public restroom proposed that will be very close, although that is not the subject tonight. Whether I can see them or not, my bedroom is~ on the third floor. The first level of my place is actually on the second floor, and the fast floor is a garage. I can hear tennis balls when people play tennis. I am just worried about five courts. I am not the closest, either. There are other units farther down that will be directly adjacent to the courts. I have a large buffering of me from the courts, but other units will not. Commissioner Schink: How often do you hear tennis balls now? Mr. Liu: Right now, not too often. I don’t believe the courts are in such great shape, and I don’t believe a lot of people play tennis there. I think it is mainly kids. There are 61 tennis courts located at 12 sites in Palo Alto. I think the adults that want to play tennis know. where the good tennis courts are, and where they are lighted. Right now, I believe the facilities are inadequate for any serious tennis player. Commissioner Schink: Do you hear people playing there once a day? Once a week? Mr. Liu: I couldn’t say. It is not consistent. I would not say there is any consistency in what I hear. I hear them just every once in awhile. I have only been there for about eight months. Commissioner Schink: And when you hear them playing, what do you find more objectionable, the noise of the tennis balls or the noise from the laughter, the yelling, etc.? ]E[L..L~: I don’t know. Right now, I could live with it. I am just worried that if five courts are ¯ going on, with all of the noise mixed up; it is the peaks that I am worded about, not the average. When you are a homeowner and you hear these sounds, and they are consistent, it is not the average that annoys yo~ it is the peal~s. If you have many peaks and many troughs, you have kind of a cycle going on. The average might be at 100 and the peaks are at 200, and the troughs are at 50, and you don’t care about the average. "You hear the peaks that are continually banging around. As a homeowner, I come home to relax. That is why I live here. Speaking for everyone who lives there, I believe they feel the same. Sanuary_ van der Laan. 3090. Ross Road. Palo Alto: While I am currently a boardmember a~ CSI, my comments tonight are as a concerned citizen, a long-time resident and a very close neighbgr of the former Chuck Thompson facility. I believe I qualify as a long-time resident, because I have lived here for more than 30 years. Incidentally, that was 15 years prior to becoming involved with the Winter Lodge and CSI. My three children all learned to swim and toplay A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 14 07-30-97 tennis at Chuck Thompson’s, and I plan to bum my mortgage next month. I qualify as a close neighbor, as my home is only approximately 400 feet from the Chuck Thompson facility. I know most of the neighbors who live on Stem and Price Courts on a personal, first-name basis. I qualify as a concemed citizen because of my participation in community activities. For example, although I was not a member of CPAC, I did attend all of its planning meetings, and I participated in all of the city-sponsored Midtown workshops. The workshops were designed to gather information from the community for the future 9fMidtown and Palo Alto. If Nancy Lytle were here, she would be able to verify that I did do this. Incidentally, I do not recall seeing any of the appellants at any of these meetings. I have offered this brief information and background on myself to establish some credibility with you before making my comments. The three appellants of the city use permit granted to CSI represent a very narrow view. Chairperson Cassel: I am sorry but your time is up. You can put something into writing for the record. John..Klimp, 953 Roblee Ridge next to Nickey: I am a member of the CSI board. We made our original proposal back in 1994. The city asked for our proposal at that time. We made the application over 19 months ago. Like any other application before you, I think Community Skating deserves to know, one way or the other, where we stand. We would like a recommendation, one way or the other, to the City Council tonight. After many months of testimony and reports and discussion and stacks of paper," there really does not appear to be a compelling reason not to go ahead with this. After duly considering this tonight, please approve the zoning administrator’s recommendation with conditions and send this on to the City Council. Send us to greener pastures. Thank you. - Commissioner Schink: There has been some question t.onight as to whether this is a public facility. It might be helpful if you could quickly describe for us what is CSI. Are you a profit- making organization? How many members do you have? What is unique about you that might help us to understand that you are public as opposed to private? Mr. Klimp: My children skated at the Winter Lodge, and that is how I got involved. There are many people from the local community and other communities that skate there and are served by the Winter Lodge. I think we would also do the.’same kind of service for the community and for the children, mainly for the children, as that is who we teach in the Palo Alto community at the tennis courts. So we would carry on the same kind of philosophy that we have for the skating at the tennis courts. Is is a public facility? Sure it is. It is for the public. The city asked for it and gave it a 20oyear lease, I believe. The city recognizes this as a public facility. Commissioner Schink: -Are you for profit or non-profit? ~: We are non-profit. We do not make any money. A:lPCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 15 07-30-97 Commissioner Schink: How many members do you have? Mr. Klimp: I do not know that. Mr. Morton: We are a special type of non-profit organization. We are a government-supporting non-profit organization. We were established after Measures A and B were passed to operate a program, and the sole beneficiary is the City of Palo Ako. .Commissione.r...Schink: And how many members do you have? Mr. Morton: It is not a membership thing. We are a non-profit board. Under the laws of California, we have a board of directors. Lynn Chiapella, 631 ...Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: On Page 5, I would like that record corrected. I request that when the item goes to the City Council, that this be corrected, because I don’t think it is correct. "Program #10 of Schools and Parks states that privately sponsored community activities should be encouraged." That is a bit misleading. You can see that the park objective is to provide park facilities conveniently located and properly designed to serve the needs of all residents in the community. That is the only objective. This is a keyed facility which will only benefit a few people. That is important to keep in mind when you are considering the noise aspect, as well. However, Program 10 falls under Policy 5 which specifically says, "Make parks safer for users and less prone to vandalism and other problems." That is where you find Program 10, so I think it is misleading to include it in here, because I think it prejudices the ease. It is not really relevant for or against, and I think it should not be in this report, because I think it adds a bias. I think if you need lighted courts, you sliould consider Greet Park and finish that plan, or go to Cubbe.rley and finish that. Put the lights there where it would not bother.any neighborhoods. Thank you. . Irit Luria. 3065 Middlefield Road. Palo Alt0.: I have difficulty with this project because as much as I am in favor of activities for ehi!dren, I have been in real estate, and I know what types of things people are looking for when they are going to buy a property. I feel very strongly that we will have increased diffienlty with selling our property when the time comes beeanseofthe addition of those tennis courts. We don’t get a lot of noise in our particular unit, but with those other units getting noise, it just affects the whole’complex. Jane Hayes. 7!8 E!lzworth Place, Palo...Alto: I live across the creek from the proposed tennis resurfacing. I just want to mention a couple of things. There has been an increased use of the tennis courts this summer. I recently gave birth, so I have been home during the say. There has been a substantial increase in use, and there is incremental noise because of that. So I just wanted to mention that somebody is giving kids tennis lessons there, but I believe i~ is private. I also wanted to point out that the property next door to me was recently for sale, and the original offer fell through because of the proposed tennis courts. The people were concerned about that. A:lPCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 16 07-31N97 So that directly will affect and has an effect on the rest of the properties. If that is the case for one, then it will be the case for all, especially if this is done. The city offers tennis lessons year round through the recreation department for children. I really have the feeling that CSI and the Palo Alto Tennis Club want a private tennis club where they can have their tournaments, because they have not been able to get a regular place to have tournaments during the year. They are using kids as an excuse as a way to tug at our heartstrings and say, this is what we really need, when that really is not a need at that spot. There are tennis courts across the street in Hoover Park that are never in full use, so if somebody wanted }o use those, they are in perfect condition. There really isn’t a need. The other thing is, you asked about CSI, and I wanted to emphasize what Lynn Chiapella said, which is that it is a $100 key entry. That is one of the things that really irritates me. As a tax- paying citizen of Palo Alto, I am not going to be able to use those tennis courts, because I am not going to pay $100. I cannot afford that to use those tennis co .urts. Thank you. Chairperson Cassel: That completes the speakers. We are now going to have summaries from the appellants. Each appellant gets five minutes, and then the applicant gets five minutes to summarize on any items that you wish to discuss. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Drive, Palo Alto: I am not prepared to summarize, but I would like to make a couple of points and ask a question: Everybody I know who lives on the creek has a back yard full of balls, and we are afraid to use our back yards because sometimes those balls come over really hard. In spite of the distance, some of those players hit them hard, and ~e are afraid to be out in our yards when people are playing right behind our houses. Also, none of these noise studies has answered the question which Mr. Rodkin pointed out that we need to know what noise levels .will be produced by the project. That means all five courts in use with adult league play and tournaments. The Palo Alto Tennis Club has not made available, as far as I know, their latest schedule for adult league play and~e tourn .aments. The original schedule last August.was horrendous. It is in the file, but I understand they have made some modifications, and I would like to see that. I would like Mr. Rodldn and Lisa to explain why Lisa is recommending that they do a further study. That has not been explained to you yet, although it may be in the writien report, but I would like to hear a verbal explanation, perhaps a summary, from Mr. Rodldn on what the previous studies have not covered that he feels are still necessary. Thank you. Dr.. galmon: In summary, this has been a very complicated subject, and is still a complicated one. The problem I believe is really whether it is possible to have a five tennis court, facility in the middle of a highly populated residential area. We have experienced the Chuck Thompson facility in the past. The.re have been times when it was intolerable. I remember one occasion when we went out with a party of friends and we wound up getting into a smaller and smaller circle. We had to give up in confusion and retreat simply because we couldn’t hear.. It is the combination of the tennis hits and the voice noise. I used to play basketball, and if somebody A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 17 07-30-97 had asked me, are we making noise on the basketball court, I would have said no, not really, it is all meaningful human communication. You have to say certain things when you play basketball. The problem is that there is too much meaningful human communication at this site. We are getting it seven days a week, and we are getting it from five courts. Nobody is mad at us, but the noise does not really mean anything to us. We are not involved in the game, and we have to sit by and listen to it and be surprised and get our attention distracted on a continuous basis. That.is the real problem. Thank you very much. , Commissioner Schink: We have spent a lot of time talking tonight about noise studies and different issues, sort of technical issues. I have been trying hard to put myself in your position. The one question I have not been able to find an answer to in all of your comments is, this proposal is for five tennis courts that have no lights. Currently there are four tennis courts with lights. It would seem that they could get longer play. From my perspective, it seems like you would be better off with five tennis courts without lights. --)’]Dr. Sh~lmon: As I understand it, the lights are not being used at all. The City Council has decreed that the lights not be used. I believe CSI has agreed not to use the lights at night. So the lights are never on. Wei Wang: I am very curious. Is there any Palo Alto resident who would like to have five tennis courts behind their back yard and two of them are 20 feet away? One is facing my windows and my doors. The wall is facing in that direction. Anyone. If there is anyone who would say yes, I would give up, but no one would want that. Besides the noise,.it is the safety. It is very dangerous. Who is going to be responsible? They will say, oh we have this, and they will say, you are a neighbor. You cannot come here.’- You cannot do this. You cannot do that. We have all these rights because the city already proved it. What can we say? If we got hurt or we are in danger of being hurt or afraid our glass will break in our house,, as house is pretty old and the glass is not safety approved. So if it breaks or ~aurts someone, to6 bad. That is the position we are in, and it is all for some tennis people. That is for certain people and for people to make money. Thank you. David Bukhan: I havea quick summary regarding the noise issue. Once again, the major point is that in doing an exception, you need to consider that it is an exception, not the everyday exception or every hour exception. Secondly; I gtrongly agree with the staff recommendation to continue studies, if needed. I do fred that the studies which have been made to be inconclusive and incomplete, especially regarding the maximum levels and the way they were measured, not using all five courts, and averaging over one second instead of over 1/8 of a second. I have a couple of other points, not directly related to the noise issue. First of all, you are probably familiar with this list. These are the courts in the neighborhood. This was prepared for the city when it considered this in 1995. I guess nothing has changed since then, although some courts are under construction at Greer Park. Anyway, you can see there are a’lot of tennis coutts A:IPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 18 07-30-97 in this area, in particular, right across the street at Hoover Park.. I jog there every day, and they are not in use. There are courts at Mitchell Park and JLS and there are courts at Rinconada and Cubberley which are a little bit farther away, but still, there are plenty of courts, so as was pointed out here, the issue is not a lack of courts. The issue is that the tennis club wants to have a private place to have tournaments. They have not con~ealed it. This is the word we hear all along. This is the place for tournaments. If they want to have it for kids, let it be just that and let’s write’it. It is a facility for children under 18 or whatever you think. No, this is for tournaments, and this is what they propose. Bleachers, grandstands. They have said there will only be a few parents. Why do they need grandstands for a few parents? Why do they need restrooms for 12 people if it is only for 12 people? It doesn’t make any sense. There is something that definitely tells me that this place is specifically for tournaments. I just want you to look at this seriously. If they are talking about tournaments, there will be outrageous noise levels, and they will have these tournaments as often as they can. There is another issue which bothers us a lot. That is the proposed restrooms. I hope you will not go with the whole proposal, and especially with the fifth court, but I just want you to consider what is proposed for the restroom location. The restroom is literally 15 feet from our friends. It is a restroom. It is a full blown public restroom. I cannot find another example in the City of Palo Alto where somebody would allow to build a restroom 15 feet from someone’s fence. This issue was really somewhat under played. I asked you several times to consider it and be very clear.and strike it out, as it is impossible. I go camping a lot, and I noticed recently-that the closest campsite in the worst campground is like 80 yards away from the restrooms. What are you doing 15 feet from the fence? It is impossible. I would also like to point out that unfortunately, I have to say that the Winter Lodge does not d(~ a very good job of maintaining the place. I have photos.with me. (They .are passed up~ These were taken just before the proposed November hearing. These show three consecutive days of garbage. You can see what is going on at the Winter Lodge. Chai _merson Cassel: Thank you. Next we will hear from the applicant who has five minutes to summarize. Mr. Pack: I am here to rebut for a couple of minutes on a few points that the appellants made. First, the city’s policy to determine noise impacts is through the noise element of the Comprehensive Plan and the noise standards in the noise ordinance. A study regarding the standards of the Comprehensive Plan was done quite awhile ago, and it was shown that there was no problem with noise in regard to the Comprehensive Plan policies whatsoever. We looked at the noise ordinance at that time, and we saw there was going to be a little bit of a problem, so we have come up with the daytime exception, and we have shown emphatically that the normal playing of tennis will not exceed 70 dba at 25 feet, therefore, that daytime exception does apply. All other standards of the noise ordinance are essentially a moot point. We are not trying to A:lPCMins7]PC0730.reg Page 19 07-30-97 rewrite the noise ordinance. We are just going with what it says on paper. One of the points someone bought up was what is going to happen when you have multiple courts, essentially five courts, going on at once. The 70 dba at 25 feet methodology to determine the applicability of the exception, it wouldn’t matter if you had one court going, five courts going, a hundred courts going, because it all boils down to one source exceeding 70 dba at 25 feet. You would have to have to have multiple sources all gathered together in one location, which obviously with tennis is not going to happen, because the courts are spread out over a fairly large area. Because of that separation distance, one noise source is going to be much less than the other. We evaluated this at the closest point, at 25 feet. That is mandated by the ordinance. Going back to the noise ordinance, even though it is not really applicable anymore, we did report also on the property line. We identified that as 46 feet from the nearest point of service from a doubles match as being the closest point at which a person would serve the ball to the nearest residential property line, therefore, the most impacted location. Those sound levels are in the report that you received recently that we looked at earlier. There is a second set of columns that said 46 feet, and those would be the property line noise levels from a similar type of service. I did a noise study for the skating rink several years ago. To my knowledge, there was no lawsuit regarding the Winter Lodge and noise problems, as referred to earlier this evening. There was a mitigation applied to that project at that time, and no retrofitting of the condominium windows was recommendations by mYSelf, and I don’t think they were done by.the Winter Lodge at the time, either. : Lastly, while the project generated noise in total, it was analyzed in the Comprehensi .re Planstudy that was done several months ago and submitted.. Again, it was found that because the Comprehensive Plan does average noise over a longer period of time, there was not going to be any kind of noise issue. Mr. Morton: I will use the rest of our five minutes with one brief remark. CSI is here because we were asked to be here by the City Council to respond to the city’s request to provide a . recreation program for the community. The elements in our proposal were worked out with city staffand with the tennis club at City Council direction. We presented what was the city’s best view of what would be good for the neighbors. We are here to get your approval on that. Commissioner Qiakian: I have a question about tennis demand, because we have heard some comments tonight. Why don’t we look at it in terms of your operation. What sort of demand do you expect for the use of these courts? Mr..Morton: At the City Council hearings, the question of what is provided on that site was not open to us. The City Council set the limit that tennis be provided on that site. So we did not go A:lPCMins7[PC0730.reg,Page 20 07-31N97 into an analysis or a defense of what the city had decided it wanted on the site. We simply responded to the city’s request that we provide that program to the community. Commissioner Ojakian: So what do you expect to be your demand? Do you expect all five of these courts to be in use continuously Over the whole hours that you have available.’? Mr. Morton: Our proposal during the summer hours is to run a skill development program for roughly elementary and junior high school children. IJuring that skill development program, we expect to be able to use the facility in a teaching capacity. The number of people on the courts at different times will depend upon their level of development. The keyed aspect of it is to allow the community access to thbse courts. The City Council had a requirement that it be at no cost to the city, so the users have to bear some of the cost of the maintenance. They way we worked that out with the City Council was to come up with a keyed facility in which users would pay a modest fee for the courts’ maintenance. Commissioner Ojakian: You have heard tonight from some of the people who reside near the courts talking about the tennis balls flying into their back yards. Do you have any suggestions on how that can be prevented or minimized? Mr. Morton: We have iron mesh fences that are the standard for tennis courts. Some balls do go over those fences. In private homes in Palo Alto where there are tennis courts, neighbors occasionally get balls over the fence. We expect that with children, you are not going to have that much of a problem. With adults, it would depend upon their skill level. Some people cannot hit the ball in the direction it is intended to go. After they have taken Winter Lodge lessons, we expect that problem to decrease substantially! : Commissioner Schmidt: In the current staff report, there is a statement from the Win~er Lodge indicating that there would be very few spectators at any given event. Mr. Morton: My particular sport, being a Canadian, is hockey, and I am used to hockey fans as the standard. My understanding is that at Wimbledon, you can hear a pin drop when players are on courts at tournaments. Generally, I think tennis spectators are very different. I am not saying that at the end of the game, there might not be some excitement, but those are general things. The sorts of tournaments that are being talked about here are not international tournaments. We are talking about tournaments with a. small "t" where adults, many of whom have entered the ¯ game late in life, are playing with other adults of the same age level. What they want to be able to do isjnst to run through the group cycle on one site, as I understand it. The fifth court becomes more useful just simply in terms of scheduling the games for one-hour for casual community players. We would like to have international tennis players, but I do not think this is where they are going to choose to play. .Commissioner Schmidt: My question is, if it is anticipated that there will be only a few A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 21 07-30-97 spectators, is it necessary to have bleachers on the site? Mr. Morton: The bleachers were not put in at our request. It was an attempt to make the site self-contained and not have any extraneous things brought onto the site. At the Winter Lodge, we run a program in which parents frequently come and watch children in the development stages of their lessons. Again, I am very sympathetic to the ice lessons. We expect that parents with elementary school age kids are going to want to do the same thing. It is just a convenience for the users. It is not.meant to be filled. Maybe there will be a Tiger Woods develop out of our program, but we do not expect the bleachers to have more than a few people at any one time. Commissioner Schmidt: It has been noted that the proposed restrooms are very close to the residential properties. Is there any problem with moving them closer to the tennis courts? Mr. Morton: The site has major limitations because of what was negotiated, again, with the City Council, that there be five courts capable of being used for these small tournaments. The restrooms were a convenience proposed in the negotiations with the tenni. "s club that the city oversaw. We will do everything wecan to locate them in the least intrusive position. As I understand sound (and I am an accountant), a thick, solid structure anywhere is an improvement inlimiting sound generation. So it would almost seem to me that the ideal place would be to put them between the tennis courts and the neighbors. It would be a sound barrier, a thick sound barrier. We are not.proposing porta potties that are going to smell. These are state-of-the-art Palo Alto plumbing. They are going to be connected to the plumbing system. They are not going to be open except during program hours. They are not going to be a magnet for less fortunate people who do not have any facilities. They are going to be for the use of the parents and children on site. With a program with children; particularly elementary school children, it is nice-to have that facility there. Anyone who has had a seven-year-old can tell you that they sometimes need those facilities in a short period oir time. Commissioner Schmidt: But again, there isn’t any reason that you know ofthat it could not be moved within the park area? Mami Barnes. 846 Boyee, Palo Alto: I amthe landscape architect for the project’: We can certainly take a look at the placement of the restrooms. I can tell you our thought process in putting it where it is now. First of all, in order to preserve the major trees on site, we oriented the courts the way we did. That then c~eated this space where it is. So all of the free space or passive area is located at one end, because that is where the major trees were. Within that context, we tried to set the restrooms where they would be the least intrusive to the space, and also form an overhead area for people to sit at tables and eat bag lunches if they want. So in fact, the bathroom building itself screens any noise that takes place at the tables from the adjacent neighbors. The building skin of the bathroomis 15 feet from the property line, which is according to code. A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 22 07-30-97 However, on the other side of the property line, there is a parking lot which adds another 30 or 40 feet to their building skin. So it is not quite as close as one might think. I am not sure what the concem is. Is it th~ structure itself and is it ugly and unsightly, or is it that it is going to smell? Those kinds of things would help me make decisions in being able to mgve it. Chairperson Cassel: I can tell you my concem. One of the concerns is voice noise. If you put it over there, people are going in that direction and they ,are going to be talking as they go. When you are walking along, y.ou do not think about what you are saying or who is overhearing what. you are saying, so mothers calling kids saying, "C’mon, get over here, you gotta go before we go," and I am not talking about huge numbers of people, just the people who are on the site. When they are taking their kids home, they stop offbefore they go home, and the noise pulls in this direction. So you have a straight line here that you are working with, but I do not know why you have the arbitrary straight line. Ms. Barnes: Which straight line? Chairperson Cassel: What you are doing is showing just the map where the tennis court is. There is some indented area that goes back towards the other buildings for the skating rink that does not show on that map. You would need to decide this later. You cannot see it here, as it is actually outside the line but before you get to the buildings for the skating rink. It is that indented area back in there. Is there going to be a fence around this site that separates it -from the skating rink? ,Commissioner Byrd: Phyllis, do you mean the back side where there is the row of green trees? Chairperson Cassel: Yes, at the back side with the row of green trees. Why didn’t you choose that area in there? Ms. Barnes: I will have to defer to the Winter Lodge. That is currently a Winter Lodge picnic area and patio on that side of those trees. Mr. Morton: That is already a family barbeque area. The trees are there and there is a fence there. Chairperson Cassel: And you are separating these two facilities in such a way that you cannot cross back and forth? Mr. Morton: They are separate parcels. Ms. Barnes: One is open at night, and the other is not. They really are separate parcels. ~hairperson Cassel: My sense was that this is awfully close, and that is why I was trying to find A:IPCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 23 07-30-97 out if you could move it. Mr. Morton: Our understanding was that we had to respect the trees in place, leaving only two spots in the plan which would be large enough for the restrooms. Commissioner Beecham: You mentioned several times tonight about the City Council encouraging you do do a fifthtennis court. As I look through the minutes, I see cautions on the fifth court. Can you tell me more about where the council advised you to do that? Mr. Morton: When we presented our proposal, the council instructed us before granting the option to take into consideration in our final representation the request of the tennis club. That was a clear request from the council. So We responded on that basis. _Co_mmissione..r Beecham: And I think you told us before that the fifth court is necessary for tournaments? Mr. Morton: Yes, the fifth court is necessary for tournaments. Commissioner Beecham: What happens if you attempt a tournament with only four courts? Mr. Morton: Then you cannot do a single-site tournament. Commissioner Beecham: Is that because of the round robin type of thing and the .number of players? Mr. Morton: Yes. Commissioner Beecham: So if there were only four courts,, would that prohibit any tournament playing? Mr. Morton: You could not have a single-site tournament. I can defer to the vice president of. the tennis elub, but you cannothave the tournaments solely at that site. You would need to integrate it with other courts elsewhere. By the say, there were five courts on the site originally. This would be replacing where that fifth court w~; Co.rnmis$ioner Beecham: You also brought up the general daylight exception. That has hour limitations, such as on Sunday from ten to six and Saturdays from perhaps nine to eight, etc. I have lost the particular page showing that. Mr. Morton: The eouncil,in granting the lease option, limited us to daylight hours. The daytime exception is somewhat more restrictive, for Sunday evenings in particular, during the summer where the daylight hours might have allowed you to go to 8 or 8:30. The daytime exception A:IPCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 24 07-30-97 would limit us to 6 o’clock on Sunday evening. Commissioner Beecham: And to enforce those hours, would you be committed to using a double-lock program, or does someone go out there and close down the facility with a second lock? Mr. Morton: That is something that will have to be discussed with the city. It is city property and it will be a keyed program. The only way we could override it would be to have the facility double locked on a Sunday night somehow. Our intent is to not have to have additional staff present to close down the facility. It is going to be used by the community the way other courts in the city are used by the community. We would not welcome the additional financial burden of having to pay staff to oversee the shutdown of~e courts. I am sure we could work that out somehow. Commissioner Beecham: If you were to get five courts and have tournaments, how often would you expect the tournaments to be held? Mr. Morton: Again, it is part of the city’s tennis club program. They had asked fora number of weekends through the summer period. We would negotiate that with respect to the fact that we are also running a teaching program for kids. We would want some weekend hours, as well. Commissioner Beecham: Is there someone here from the tennis club who could answe; that? Chuck Bradley: I am Vice President of the Palo Alto Tennis Club. There would be two kinds of tournament operations at these courts. One is called the USTA league, which has become very popular in the area. For .these tournaments, they are typically held during the evening from six to eight or so, restricted by the daylight hours. The attendance at these tournaments is vrry small. It is typically three, four, not more than a half dozen p~ople who are spectators for these kinds of tournaments. ¯i " : And how many players would you normally expect? Mr. Bradley: The total would be five courts. Three courts Would have mixed doubles, so that would be a total of 12 people, and two courts of singles. Typically, two or three people come out to Watch, but most of the people are on the courts playing. Those are seasonal. We would not be able to play at this facility from late October up through March because of daylight restrictions. The tournaments here are typically sehednled for evenings, like on a Tuesday, and some are on Saturdays. So again, USTA leagues would be only from April up through the end of September. Commissioner Beecham: So on those, it would likely be one or two times a week? Once a week. The other tournaments we are talking about are those put on by the A:lPCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 25 07-30-97 Palo Alto Tennis Club. We have a total of eight tournaments a year, and they are typically held on weekends. We have a mix of one-day and two-day tournaments over Saturday and Sunday. Typically, we have anywhere from about 60 or 70 people to maybe a little over 100 for tournament signup. One of the reasons that the Palo Alto Tennis Club has been interested in this site is because it will offer some relief to the public courts that we have been using all along for public play. That is part of our interest in setting up this facility. For a clarification on the lights that you mentioned earlier, Jon, it is true that there are light standards there, but they have not operated since 1990. The city cut offthe power permanently when they razed the old Chuck Thompson gymnasium. Commissioner Ojakian: Is this operation doable if, in fact, the fifth court was not allowed? Mr. Bradley: We could not have the USTA league play there without five courts. It takes three courts for mixed doubles and two courts for singles, so it always requires five courts. There are three seasons for the USTA leagues. Between all three seasons, it goes through the course of the whole year. Commissioner Ojakian: Excluding the tournament piece, is this still a financially doable operation? It sounds like we are getting some revenues back based on the key fees, etc. If you had four courts, could you still do this operation? Mr. Morton: It makes it somewhat less attractive. It is not a moneymaking operation. CSI is doing this as a public service. There will not be a net positive revenue. Commissioner Ojakian: To ask exclusive of that comoa, ent, it is not a moneymaking operation, but without the fifth.court, how much more of a non-moneymaking operation would it be? You are talking to an accountant, too, so I will understand ~hat you say. Mr. Morton: I cannot instantly project what the 10ss of revenue would be. Part of the problem is that if we are given the responsibility for the site maintenance, I don’t quite know how to solve that problem. I don’t know whether or not we could stage the fifth court, whether we could resurface four courts and then determine whatthe economic impact would be without it, and then God forbid we should have to come back and get permission for the fifth court. That would be the only way I can think of to establish the economic facts. Commissioner Ojaldan: So to translate what I have heard so far, then, without the fifth court, it would be ditTlcult to have the one type of tournament, and without the fifth court, there is some financial impact, but it is not clear exactly what that is. Mr. Morton: The tournament thing is how to arrange for a group ofPalo Altans to play on one site in this round robin format. Without that fifth court, you cannot do it, as you have just heard. A:[PCMins71PC0730.reg Page 26 ’07-30-97 Ms. Jensen: I might be able to answer that a little more clearly. The tennis tournaments will not be a big moneymaker. The tennis tournaments are a part of what the City Council requested in that we work with the Palo Alto Tennis Club, because they needed some services provided. We do not project that they will be a big moneymaker, but yes, it would be some loss. We believe that the children’s lessons will be the main income generator on this site. Mr. Morton: Perhaps a better way of responding to that is to say that that would be a more significant impact, since we do well with groups of children and with multiple teachers. Just like the skating program, we want multiple sites for different skill levels. You do not want very young elementary school students on the same court with junior high kids. So that does limit ¯ your program. Commissioner Schink: Would you be able to sign the courts with signage that would state that these courts are for recreational players, and that players of an open level or a professional level would be prohibited from playing on the courts so that we could then have some assurances that you were in conformance with the -- Mr. Morton: I think that is a question you might want to direct to the city attorney. I do not know what limits you can impose. We on the boai’d will discuss ways of making it clear to the users that they are in a neighborhood and that we want them to respect therights of their neighbors. We will.have a sign at the entry indicating that we would like them to self-manage their noise. We are not a whole btmeh of inconsiderate people, and with that information,.people will try to keep the noise level down. Commissioner Sehink: The recreational tennis, the’USTA program, are never tournaments at the open level that are proposed for these courts. I see him shaking his head. These are 35, 40, 45 type players. Mr. Morton: Yes. Chairperson Cassel: I have a question for the landscape architect. What happens if you pull that fifth court back from the wall to the other side so that it is not so close to that home? Ms. Barnes: This is access. I don’t know if thefire marshal would have anything to say about that. I believe that we need some access for fire. At the moment, this is all landscaped verge here, so if we pulled it this way, we would be splitting the landscape verge with fire access. Do you mean trying to pull this farther from some residents? Mr. Morton: Most ofth. ose are eucalyptus. There is not a lot of space to move that court and still have acdess to the restrooms. Chairperson Cassel: Of course, I was not too happy with the restrooms there, either. A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 27 07-30-97 Ms. Barnes: It is conceivable that that could be done. It would really influence the traffic flow, the pedestrian flow. Everyone would be going this way. Chairperson Cassel: That would then tend to keep people from doing that easily. They would do it with thought. In other words, the idea of this passive area is to have a passive area there, but it was to try to provide a break from there to the apartments. Ms. Barnes: Yes, both. Chairperson Cassel: That would simply make it more passive, and fewer people would go that way. Ms. Barnes: It would be a shame, in effect, to cut it offso that it is not used. If your intent, in movingthe tennis court, is to create dead space, I would feel badly about that for the city and for everyone. Chairperson.Cassel: But you would be farther away from that neighbor. Ms. Barnes: Yes, this tennis court would be. Mr. Morton: One of the reasons you want the traffic to flow toward the washroom is that you want it to serve as a buffer for the traffic that is coming that way. You would lose that if you had them circle the other tennis courts. Chairperson Cassel: I will now close the public heating. Are there any questions of staff at this time.? Commissioner Ojakian: I would like to hear from the ~ity attorney. We heard Mr. Morton comment quite a bit on what the city is requiring happen at this particular site. Not remembering exactly all of what the council did request, maybe you could fill us in a little bit on what stipulations are put on CSI. Ms. Cauble: I would like to turn that over to Bill Fellman of our real estate division to respond in a more specific way. In a general way, I would like to say that it is very clear that the City Council required a use permit for this project. There may even have been some argument that some level oftermis activity could occur out there because it has been there for years. The council-approved package for this project required that a use permit be obtained, so it is important that we keep in mind that certainly, the council was looking to have certain needs met, if possible, and at the s .apae time, they required the public process that the City Council ultimately be able to make the findings for a use permit. Bill, I don’t know if you brought any more information with you about what kinds of things the council wanted to include in any proposal. A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 28 07-30-97 Mr. Fellman: Included in the RFP was what was on the site, and it said that the site now includes five tennis courts and a swimming pool and is adjacent to and shares, parking with the Winter Lodge ice skating facility. The council was quite clear that the pool would have to be eliminated. Other than that, I can skim through here and find something more specific, but that is all that I can comment on right now. Commissioner Ojakian: So that is what they did not want there. Was there any comments about how many tennis courts they did want there? Mr. Fellman: I would have to go through the minutes from that meeting to verify exactly how many courts. I do not recall their ever saying how many courts would be there. I can check that and get back to you later. Commissioner Beecham: I did find in the minutes from the council meeting of May 1, 1995 which is in our staff report as Attachment #3 some comments from Lanie Wheeler. It says, "If the Phase 2 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, [and we do not have that drawing] she would have a difficult time being in favor of it." CSI had said that even with the fifth court, A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 29 07-30-97 the facility would not generate money. So that is the comment that I find in the council deliberations at that meeting, at least. Ms. Barnes: I can indicate where the original fifth court was, if you would like. Commissioner Schink: The thing I think is appropriate to add to your comment on the minutes, Bem, is that Jean McCown also made the point that if;the council, as a majority, felt that a fifth court was inappropriate, all consideration should stop at that point. The council did not make that decision, and they allowed the project to proceed forward. So you should not conclude that the council said no to a fifth court. Commissioner Beecham: I think the intent of the council was to say that the fifth court is sensitive and that it depends upon location and how it would affect the neighbors. Commissioner Schink: I have a question for Debbie. In my reading of the acoustical reports that we now have in front of us, recreational players seem to fall within what is allowed in our noise ordinance. Professional players and open level players do not. Can we use the use permit to specify that no players exceeding recreational ability could use these courts, thereby using the use permit to establish that we have a level of play that gives us some assurances that we should be within the noise ordinance? Ms. Cauble: I think ifI gave the issue some more thought, I might have a more thorough response. My initial response is that while I understand why one might propose that, given the information available to the commission tonight, aside from any other legal issues, that kind of condition is virtually unenforceable. When crafting-land use conditions to be meaningful, one really tries to focus on physical things and readily verifiable things, e.g., where buildings are placed, what are the hours of operation, how bright the. lights are, how loud the noiseis. The identity of individuals using a facility makes it essentially an enforcement nightmare for us. In the future, if the facility is approved and there are concerns about noise or other operational issues and the zoning administrator is asked to look at the permit and determine whether or not the conditions have been satisfied, and the permit should be revoked for failure to comply with the conditions, I would hate to try and deal with the morass of deciding whether Fred suddenly became an open player last Saturday, and now he cannot use the tennis courts anymore. I don’t play tennis, so I do not know if you have little cards that you carry that say what level you are in. I apologize for my ignorance on that, but it is not something I would recommend. I totally understand the basis for why you suggested it, but it would be an enforcement nightmare, so for that reason alone, I would never recommend such a condition. Chairperson Cassel: You are saying that the fish stories would change, depending upon the issue of the day.. Exactly, and it would be hard for the operator to enforce, and it would be hard for A:lPCMins7[PC0730.reg Pag~ 30 07-30-97 Planning to enforce, and it would be hard for the cops to enforce it. It would make us feel good, but it would not be a meaningful condition. Commissioner Schmidt: I was wondering if Mr. Rodkin had any comments about the latest information from Mr. Pack. :Mr. Rodkin: In my looking at the data, I would conclude that it is likely that the daytime exception would not be met all of the time. I don’t know whether it would be a professional player or a strong adult, perhaps. More data would have to be gathered to see how often various categories of players would hit the ball and generate a noise level of greater than 70 dba at 25 feet. In his measurements, Mr. Pack has made several of them where noise levels did exceed 70 dba at 25 feet. The general exception is pretty specific in that it says, "Any noise source that does not produce a noise level exceeding 70 dba at a distance of 25 feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt." My concern is for the city, and for everyone else, too, but especially for the city since that is what I see as my role here. That is, that an approval on that basis would appear to likely lead to a situation where the finding would be made that indeed, the limits for the exception are not met, once tennis play began. I can see that that could create some problems. Chairperson Cassel: Is that why you are recommending further study? Mr. R0dkin: Actually, there were two reasons. One would be to make a determination as to whether or not the daytime exception would apply. It is an important exception to have in the noise ordinance because of the nature of the City ofPalo Alto’s noise ordinance. It is very restrictive, so this exception allows a lot of things to ~o on. That was one reason. Would theexception apply or not? In looking at the data here, I would conclude no because of the" way the thing is written. The other reason would be to be sure that if this did not apply, then you would go back to the other quantitative portions of the ordinance. So it is really important to make sure as much as one eat, that the mitigation measures that would be included to meet the quantitative limits were sufficient: So again, if someone were to go back after the project was approved, there would be a high likelihood and every reason to expect that the noise ordinance would be met. I felt that the data upon which the original mitigation measures were made were pretty limited. These are more data. It is conceivable that these data would be sufficient to go ahead and evaluate the quantitative part of the limits and look at the mitigation measures’that might be appropriate or possible or feasible to meet the ordinance limits. You have not asked me to get into all of that, and I’will.not unless you want me to. I tried to give my best opinion, but ask anybody, and they will always bring up something else, which I did, too. My primary concem is that there is a high likelihood that since the city has, through the process, made the noise ordinance the central and only focus of determining whether or not the noise from this project is A:IPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 31 07-30-97 acceptable, the city has tried its hardest to design a project that is likely to meet those limits. Commissioner Schink: I have another question for Debbie. I understand your answer on trying to grade tennis players, but let me come at it from a little different direction. If we accept the acoustical study that the applicant has provided us, which says that a pro tennis player hits the ball in a way that the noise exceeds our ordinance and that a recreational player does not, the real test becomes, if the police find that they are violatin~ the noise ordinance, then we would ¯ presume that tennis players of a level exceeding what would be allowed are playing on the court, or their in.formation is not correct, and we would have to go back and revisit their use permit. If we said that the use permit requires that they conduct the facility within the limits of our noise ordinance, and they know that they can do that by limiting play to certain types of players, can’t we use a use permit to get at it in that manner? Ms. Cauble: Is your question whether the city could approve the use permit based on an assumption that the permittee would limit use to people that would cause the noise ordinance to be satisfied? Commissioner Schink: The use permit would simply.require that they be in conformance with the noise ordinance. Ms. Cauble: As a starting point, everyone needs to comply with the noise ordinance, whether they have a use permit or not. I am sure that ira use permit is granted, I do not recall all of the conditions, but that probably is one of the conditions. We do that not because in the absence of a condition, they do not have to, but as a reminder to people that you need to, and it also makes it easier for us to start proceedings to revoke a permit.’for failure to comply when we have been very explicit about particular laws that we were especially concerned about. The challenge in my mind for the commission, and then the council, is to decide (1) are you satisfied thatthe negative" declaration is accurate in stating that there would be nb significant impacts falling fi’om the project, so first, a CEQA question, and (2) in order to approve the use permit, you and the council need to make the finding that there would be nothing detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and convenience by appro .v~ng the permit. You need to weigh all of the information to reach that decision. It depends upon how you read the data. If you read the data to say there is a serious issue about whether or not they can comply with the noise ordinance, in my view, it would be very difficult to make the’finding to approve the use permit. On the other hand, if you read the data to say yes, I am certain they can satisfythe noise ordinance, or.with certain conditions imposed, they can satisfy the noise ordinance, you might approve the use permit, although eertairdy, the noise ordinance is not the only standard you need to look to in issuing a use permit. We assume that everyone must comply with the noise ordinance. There is somethirig beyond that .to get a use permit, and that is up to all of you to evaluate. It is a difficult question to respond to. Assuming that we think this would meet the noise ordinance, you said A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 32 07-30-97 .something about what mitigations would also occur. You have come prepared with some mitigations.’? Mr. Rodkin: No. The reason is because in order to design the mitigation measures, I would want to be satisfied that I knew how loud the noise source was. If we are talking about mitigation measures, we are talking about the quantitative limits in the ordinance, not the daytime exception. As Mr. Pack explained, there is no way to ,change how loud a tennis ball is when it is hit. So you are back to those other limits. I did look at these numbers, and I am trying to understand all the different distances. Even I continue to be confused as to how far it is to here or there and exactly how loud it would be at those points. In my opinion, the next step would be to go back and evaluate noise barriers if one were looking at the quantitative noise limits. In taking these data and trying to understand them, it looked to me from some quick calculations that noise barriers of the heights that Mr. Pack recomme~d.h’~t in his addendum report the second time around that about eight-and-a-half or nine feet w/~i;e~ sufficient. But that gets into someone having to make some decisions of reasonab’l~ne~s with respect to the intent of the noise ordinance and exactly how it is being applied and interpreted. So that is my own opinion as to how it should be applied and how it should be interpreted. Commissioner O_iakian: How long would it take you to collect more data and analyze it? If we chose to take some action tonight, there is always an interim period between now and when the council gets this matter. Mr. Rodkin: I can preface that by saying that that was one position I was hoping not to be in in this exercise. I was hoping not to be the one trying to analyze this and telling the city what kind of mitigation measures were necessary to have it meet the ordinance. That is something I certainly could do, however, but hoping not to do that just because then, I am designing it. It is a design issue at that point. Commissioner Ojakian: What you did say is that you have to gather more data to determine that. How long would it take you to do that? Mr. Rodkin: I did not mean myself. I’m sorry, and I am not sure that these data, with some explanation, are not sufficient. I would think that some more data would be helpful, particularly adults who are not professionals, things like that,.so we get a better idea of how representative it is. To answer your question, if you wanted me to go out and gather data and analyze it, it would take a few weeks. I would think that any other consultant could take a few weeks, as well. ]h~9~_: To respond to a previous question, I did find the minutes from June 13, 1994. It said, "Direct staff to pr0eeed with Phase 1 of the community skating proposal with the participation and assistance of the Palo Alto Tennis Club as appropriate. Explore with CSI and PATC as appropriate the development of the remainder of the site with low-intensity recreational uses that were compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, not including a swimming pool A:IPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 33 07-30-97 use, and that there be no cost to the city. Return to council with a recommendation." That was when they also approved the budget to remove the swimming pool. Phase 1 noted that there was a fifth court that was removed when the swimming pool was removed. So Phase 1 was the four existing courts that remained. Phase 2 was the readdition of the fifth court and barbeque area. .Chairperson Cassel: If there are no further questions, I will return this item to the commission. Commissioner Byrd: I would like to kick off with a two-part comment. One speaks to our process, and one is my opinion. This is a quasi-judicial heating. While it is not a perfect analogy to a courtroom, itsomewhat holds. In a courtroom, a judge and a jury, which is somewhat what we are playing with, is inevitably presented with dueling experts. At the end of the trial, a decision has to be made, because the experts always disagree. So in this case, I think that sending this back out for further study, given the two-page chronology of the year-and-a-half of effort that has been put into this, does not make much sense. I would encourage us tonight to make a decision one way or the other on a recommendation to the council and move this thing along, based on the data that are before us. I understand why staff has suggested that more data may shed more light, but more data will always shed more light. I think we have enough light focused on this now to make a decision. For me, I think that the data provided by Mr. Pack lead to a coverable claim that activity at this facility would be within our noise ordinance. It is not black and white, but it is a distinct shade of gray. On that basis, I would be willing to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision and recommend that the City Council deny the appeal. I would be open to hearing any sculpting of the conditions that any of my fellow commissioners would choose to recommend. - Chairperson .C .assel: Is that a motion? MOTION: Commissioner Byrd: Yes, that is a motion. SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian. Chairperson .caste!: I have a motion by Commissioner Byrd that .we uphold the zoning administrator’s decision. Commissioner Byrd: And recommend approval bfthe use permit by the City Council with the conditions imposed by the zoning administrator, as well as making the finding on the negative declaration. ¯ Chairperson .Casse!: Would you consider some friendly amendments? . Commissioner Byrd: Certainly. ~onei" Schink: Would you be willing to move Court #5 ten feet closer to the Winter A:IPCMins71PC073 0.reg Page 34 07-30-97 Lodge? And would you also be willing to consider moving the restrooms to the area between Courts 3 and 5? Commissioner Byrd: I will accept those as friendly amendments for purposes of discussion. Commissioner Schink: I have one other request that the conditions include a requirement in the use permit that the courts be operated in conformance,with the noise ordinance. I think we need that in there. Commissioner Byrd: I wonder if we are setting a precedent there for making global statements in every use permit that it has to comply with all portions of the code because there is an assumption. Ms. Orote: IfI could interject, I often do attach that condition to use permits where noise is either a potential issue or has been a point of discussion. So it is a standard practice to do so. Also, in your November 13, 1996 staff report, there were two potential conditions that y.ou were considering at that time regarding a neighborhood liaison and also to have regular meetings in the neighborhood with the neighbors. That is on Page 13 of that staff report. You may wish to consider those as additional conditions. Commissioner Schmidt: I was going to suggest adding those. Chairperson Ca~sel: That is, to appoint a neighborhood liaison and have regular neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Schmidt: They are similar to conditions that the YMCA has. They have regularly scheduled meetings with the neighborhood, with a minimum of one every slx.months to review the status of compliance with the terms of the t~seopermi~ "t, the status of noise and the status of neighborhood relations. ~ Cassel: The first couple of times there, not only did they have the neighborhood meeting, but they had a followup meeting. Commissioner Sctamidt: Yes, the rest of the sentence is that advance notice of meetings is to be provided to the zoning administrator in order to allow attendance by a city representative. Following the fn’st year of semi-annual meetings, meetings may be held once yearly with the consent of the neighbors. ¯Commissioner $chink:. I am still waiting to hear whether Owen is willing to accept my condition on the noise ordinance. Commissioner Byrd: I will accept all of these friendly amendments on the condition that Phyllis A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 35 07-30-97 is keeping track of them. Commissioner Beecham: I want to clarify in the conditions which are also in that same staff report that Condition #3 discusses hours. I believe the context under which the commission seems to be moving to approve this as being within the noise ordinance is under the general daylight exception. So the hours under Condition #3 need to be revised to be the general daylight exception hours. ’ .Commissioner Byrd: I will accept that. Commissioner Beecham: In addition to support that, I would add a condition that a second lock system be implemented. I think it is going to be extremely difficult for players to remember when it is that they need to get off the court. Commissioner Schink: By a second lock, do you mean one that at twilight, it closes the courts? Commissioner Beecham: That some staff member closes the courts with a lock to which the public does not have a key. Commissioner Schink: Such as an electric locking system timed with the ordinance? Commissioner Beecham: That might work, except that one needs to ensure that everyone is out by that time. The electric locks do not do that. Chaim_ erson Cassel: Are there any other friendly amL~ndrnents? Ms. Cauble: For the record, was that last friendly amen.dment proposal accepted by th~ maker and seconder of the motion on the lock system? Commissioner Byrd: I am not sure I understand it. Is it a passive system that triggers at a certain time, or are you asking that a real live person come by and cheek on it? Commissioner Beecham: Unless someone can show me a passive system that would get people offthe courts at the appointed time, I think it hasto be a live person to come and lock it. .Commissioner Ojakian: I am comfortable with what Bern has proposed. I think it is reasonable, given some of the neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Schink: First, I want to say that we have reviewed volumes of information on the sound impacts of this project. I believe they are sufficient to allow us to make this decision that this project would be substantially in conformance with the ordinance. When we look at these types of things, we have to make a practical judgment as to what types of people willbe using A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 36 07-30-97 these courts.’ I know that if we were thinking about what would happen if the Giants played on the Little League field on Middlefield Road, it would be a whole different set of impacts than if it were Little Leaguers. It is just like that on these courts. It is ’a whole different world from the normal hackers out there playing versus pros hitting who are going to make a lot more noise. So it seems clear from the testimony that this is a recreational facility. Given those facts, I am comfortable with the data that have been presented to us. So I will be happy to support this project. I feel that it will be a good asset to the commtvaity. One other point I want to share with some of the people that are in the audience is that there ¯ seems to be a perception amongst the neighbors that there are a lot of spectators for these types of events. I can say that I have participated in probably 30 of these USTA events in the last ten years, and if there were as many spectators at all 30 of those events as there are in this room tonight, I would be astonished. You do not get spectators at those e~,ents. I don’t think you need be concerned about a lot of people watchir~g these tennis games. Commissioner Ojakian: Jon, would you comment on why you want to move the fifth tennis court over, and why you suggested where the restrooms should be? Commissioner Schink: For two reasons. One is that if we move the tennis court an additional ten feet, that would put it 30 feet from the fence on that side.¯ When a tennis ball goes over the back fence, it usually.bounces over or just clears the fence on the fly. When it clears the fence on the fly, it bounces a second time. If you move the court another ten feet, you almost .never get balls going over into.neighbors’ yards. So I think that is a reasonable change. The other thing is that while I do not find the restrooms particularly objectionable near the neighbors, I think that combined with the covered patio, you are going to get more pe .ople congregating there. It could be really bothersome, with people perhaps lingering in that area after the games. It seems that if we are concerned about the neighbors’ privacy, we should probably move the bathrooms and that facility more central to the other things that are going on. Commissioner Beecham: Where did you want the bathrooms, Jon? Commissioner $chink: Between Courts 3 and 5. Chairperson Cassel: It is hard to plan distances from here, but in terms’of people walking around and.moving around, most of the people will be on that end, and that will keep most of the people on that end. Are there any other comments or discussion? Commissioner Schmidt: I think we all know this is a difficult situation. It is particularly incumbent on CSI and th~ Winter Lodge people and all of the players who use the facility to be as courteous as possible whenever they use it and to make sure that everyone who participates there realizes that they are in a residential neighborhood and it is important to be good neighbors. A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 37 07-30-97 Chairperson Cassel: I want to comment that I have walked to the back of that area a number of times over a period of time. I can understand why neighbors are very sensitive to noise there. The Winter Lodge is designed with a sloped roof, and it is open in the back. So if you stand in the front, you hear nothing. When you stand in the back, you hear a great deal of noise, even when there are very few people skating, because the noise goes up and bounces off that roof and bounces back. This is not an issue about that particular facility, but that particular facility does make noise, and I think it does make people very sensitive. I don’t know if there is anything at this time that the Winter Lodge can do about that or whether they can look at times when people can be inside practicing. When I was there one rnoming, it was a morning time, and people were taking lessons. No one was taking lessons inside, but people were taking lessons outside, and the noise out back was strikingly loud. It may have been within the noise ordinance, but it was certainly disturbing to the neighbors, and that was not when a major event was going on. So I can see why neighbors are concerned. This issue is not specifically about the Winter Lodge. I am going to support the motion with those two major changes that I hope they will be able to implement. Commissioner Beecham: Certainly, one thing we have seen here is that our ordinance is too simply written. It does’not provide the basis we need for making a very complicated decision, although I certainly do not look forward to having a more complicated ordinance, either. I don’t think that will satisfy us very much, either. In the end, noise is a very subjective thing. This has come down to a gam.e of numbers. I am marginally but sufficiently confident that in typical play, the numbers as indicated by the most recent data will be below 70 dba at a maximum. I think this is still going to be a burden on the neighborhood. This is a genuine tradeoffbetween a community good. It is clearly is an impact on the’neighbors. I wish we had a better way of taking care of it. I would like to fred a good compromise, but I do not feel there is a good eomprornise here. I do not see much we can do to reduce the impact on.the neighborhood. We have in the conditions putting up a six-foot sound fcnde. I certainly do believe much of the data that is in here that for 9-foot serves, a six-foot sound fence does not really take care of that. I’ simply do not know of a better way to take care of it. But overall, I do believe that the vast bulk of the play will be within the 70 dba level, and that does qualify this for the daylight exeption. I think that if one says that is not the ease, then basically, whatone does is to ban tennis play in significant areas of the city, and that is not where we want to go, either. So I will support the motion. MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there .any further discussion on this motion to support the zoning adminislrator’s decision with the negative declaration and conditions, and to deny the appeal? The conditions include adding compliance with the noise ordinance, to appoint a neighborhood liaison.whom people can reach, to have regular neighborhood meetings as per the recommendations inthe staff report, and for these meetings, there should be advance notice to the zoning administrator, and there follows a whole series here relating tO when we should be noticed and what will happen with those reports. Also, there will be a change in Condition #3 A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 38 07-30-97 regarding the hours so that they will meet the hours of the general daylight exception hours, and there will be a second lock system added that will have someone close the facility at night, not an automatic closing system. In addition, we wish to move the restroom building forward between Courts 3 and 5, and move tennis court #5 ten feet towards the ice skating rink. All those in favor, please say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Bialson not participating. Mr. Schreiber: This item will be on the August 1 lth City Council meeting only for the purpose of continuation to a September City Council meeting. I believe it will be the September 15th council meeting, but that is not a guarantee..While it will be on the August agenda, it will not be heard that night by the City Council. Chairperson Cassel: I now need a motion to move Agenda Item 6 forward. MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I so move. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Bialson has returned. A:[PCMins7[PC0730.reg Page 39 07-30-97 August 9"~, 1997 Attachment 6 To The Plarming Cornmission On The Draft Minutes of the July 30, 1997 Hearing on 3009 Middlefield Road. I would respectfully ask thal. the minutes be approved after a brief delay to verlfy that the following corrections should be made for accuracy sake. All these corrections are based on what was actually said and have nothing to do ,~tith any bias I might have. The,~"-’~o:,’t,,,,,., .~.:, ....have been very wel! transcribed for this meeting and U1~[-e IS nn ....~t~:--~-’__ ,_.,, .,.. :,m of the mlnutes. These correcti~’~’~,,,~ at-e based on mq I~av~m~ been at the ’~-"-’_:_.__.~._.~It~g, and ~:~ a recordim] of the televised I) Paqe 1.7 ’ .........." u,,,. .~ " -uu,.,.um of the ~,,.g~ -’-~ paqe 18 rnldd}e of tIie pug~ IU: in is ti~,.~.d~-, as the speaker and in bott] iu~::: ~.-,.,~ correction ’.,-,.=, that the speaker was Johr,, K. Abraham. 2) c .......bottom _,~.._ ~....,.- .:. statement,¯ : ,~,.~o 31 of page last .:,,_.,It~hu~ nf !"it-. ~’n’~~n" ~,.h,,,~:,,.~" "’-’.~,...-,,,~, tO paq~. .,-,~"~ fir..=~t sentence. The co~_:~. ..... ,n.,",’l!! to ~"" ....’ ...."..,.,.n~ fragment of the sentence on page.,-. fra,.:l,’;-,.en,.’ .-,,"’; .... ....,:’~ ....read "a,-:,:~.pfabl~. that the ,--’~’,.~ tru.. its hardest to d~,=.,:. .....,~,,, e_ p.rojer:f ............fha~ i.; !iL’.~.ILI_. fn._ h~_.et"~.’ those._ iirnits." The sentence left. uncorrecte,! implies U.,at the city has tried to design the prnject ,.~h,.-.,; iri,.,,, .....,-,_.t it has not done so. . ._~_ ._,.., u.:,,, ser,,tence of l’h. Rodkin’s .--÷~,-",-’-"-~._-.,.u,.~, ,.,,: ,~,..~÷ the top of ,.h~ page: The correction should read "In taking these data and trying to understand thern, it looked to me frorn sorne quick calculations that noise barriers of the heights that Mr. Pack recommended in his ......,udde, ,d’"-’.~., ,, "- ~p,_,- " - ’-+,. the SeL-:Ond tl,,t ~ ""- ~.ul- ....... u,..,-4 that about_ ei,~h f-and-a-hal f~, . . .or rl!tte ~~t "’"~".: ....t:,,:,~_ h~ ....sufficient." Mr. Rndi(in used f~"-,,~ word ......mu,_~’"’ not "would." Attachment 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Planning July 30, 1997 Appeals of 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. REQUEST This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision approving an outdoor recreational facility (tennis facility) on the former Chuck Thompson Tennis and Swim Center site. Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to redevelop the site including refurbishing the four existing tennis courts and reorienting two of them, adding a fifth tennis court, and adding a passive park area and restrooms on the east side of the site. Spectator seating is planned to be located in the area between Courts 3 and 5. There would also be related landscaping and site improvements. The Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator in August 1996 and appealed by three neighborhood groups. A chronology 6f major events associated with the project is presented in the "Background/Project Information" section of this report. The Planning Commission is responsible for recommendingto the City Council whether the appeals should be approved or denied or an alternative course of action pursued. If an alternative course of action is agreed upon and it includes additional acoustical analysis, the Planning Commission should comment on the assumptions and factors that should be included in that analysis. RECOMMENDATION S:[PlanlPladivlPCSRl3009Mid2.sr Page 1 Staff believes, for the reasons outlined in the "Discussion" section of this report, that the acoustical analyses completed to-date for the project are inconclusive and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to hire a consultant, to be paid for by Community Skati.ng Inc., to complete a new acoustical analysis, including the items outlined in the "Discussion" section of this report. The report should focus on assessing how loud the proposed tennis play and related activities will be, especially compared to the Noise Ordinance requirements included in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PANIC) and the existing ambient condition. This information would be used to supplement and possibly amend the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further recommends that while the applicant (CSI, Inc.) will have to fund the additional analysis, that a standard City of Palo Alto "Request for Proposal" (RFP) process be used to obtain the consultant services. Planning Department staff would select and manage the acoustical consultant. If the Planning Commission does not concur with the need for another acoustical study, or if the applicant does not agree to pay for the study, then staff recommends that the Commission recommend denial of the project based on inconclusive acoustical infbrmation. Draft findings for denial of the project have been attached to this report for Planning Commission reference (see Attachment 1). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The site is a flat 2.34 acre mid-block parcel located in the 3000 block of Middlefield Road in the Midtown area owned by the City of Palo Alto. It is currently occupied by four tennis courts in poor repair. Planning staff estimates that the site is used at approximately 20% of its full capacity due to the poor condition of the existing courts. Project Description The project includes the work described in the "Request" section of this report. CSI anticipates regular use of the courts during daylight hours only. No night use of the courts would be allowed. The courts would be available to the public for a minimal annual fee (approximately $100 per year). The landscaped park area proposed on the east side of the site is intended to provide a calm area between the tennis courts and the condominium development adjacent to the site. The initial project description is included in the attached November 13, 1996 Planning Commission report. On June 4, 1997, the applicant submitted a revised statement regarding tournament play on the site. According to the applicant, about 12 players (four singles and one doubles match) would be participating in Junior program tournaments, with approximately 12 spectators. S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 2 These toumaments would be held up to four times per year. The adult tournaments would generate about the same number of players, but with two to three spectators. The adult tournament play would occur once a week on either Tuesday nights or Saturday afternoons for about two hours. See Attachment 2 for the complete statement on tournament play. Zoning Adminis!rator Approval , The Zoning Administrator approved the application, with 24 conditions, on August 15, 1996 (see Attachment 1 of the attached November 13, 1996 Planning Commission Report for full Zoning Administrator decision). Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decision Three appeals of the Zoning Administrator decision were received. Generally, the letters addressed the belief that a tennis facility is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses, the noise and traffic analyses were incomplete, that enforcement of the conditions will take too many City resources and that the proposed conditions would not protect residents in the area. The issues raised in all three appeal letters were addressed in the "Discussion" section of the November 13, 1996 Planning Commission report (see Attachment 3). The issues were further addressed in supplemental information transmitted to the Planning Commission on January 24, 1997 (see attachment 4) and in a staff report dated January 29, 1997 (see Attachment 5). Chronology. of Major Events 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 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 S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 3 November 13, 1996 December 31, 1996 January 8, 1997 January15,1997 January21,1997 January22,1997 January23,1997 January29,1997 April 16, 1997 April25,1997 April30,1997 June 4,1997 June 12,1997 July 2,1997 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 appellents and applicants Letter from J. Abrahams, one of the three appellents providing comments on acoustical reports and a second report from V. Salmon Letter from W. Wang, one of the three appellents providing comments on acoustical reports and a third report from V. Salmon Edward Pack Associates submits-an addendum to original acoustica! 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 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 Ill!ngworth 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-appellents. Response S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRl3009Mid2.sr Page 4 July 2, 1997 July 12, 1997 July 30, 1997 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, .l 997 response to Illingworth and Rodkin April 16, 1997 report Planning Commission to review application, receive public testimony and recommend action to City Council The primary issues that remain unresolved involve the acoustical analysis and whether the expected increase in noise from the proposed project has been accurately measured and whether or not it will meet Palo Alto Noise Ordinance standards (Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC) and the CalifomiaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA) requirements.These acousticalissues are discussed in more detail in the "Discussion" section of this report. Site Information Table 1 in the attached November 13, 1996 Planning Commission report summarizes the pertinent information regarding the site in terms of property owner, applicant, appellants, zoning, comprehensive plan designation and existing and surrounding land uses (see Attachment 3, Planning Commission staff report dated November 13, 1996). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The two policies pertinent to this application are Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element and Policy 11, Program 35 of the Environmental Resources Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Program 10 of Schools and Parks states that privately-sponsored community activities should be encouraged. The tennis facility will be operated by a private entity that will provide a community activity for a minimal yearly fee. Although the facility may be limited to a specific number of patrons and it may be run on a "not-for-profit" basis, it will still meet this policy objective in that it is a privately sponsored facility on city-owned land and represents a cooperative effort between the two entities. Policy 11 of the EnvironmentalResources Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protect residents from unnecessary noise. Program 35 of the same Element provides recommended standards for daytime noise levels. The acceptable indoor standards are 50 dBA and outdoor standards are 65 dBA. It appears that after review of all the acoustical reports and responses to reports that have S:[Plan[PladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 5 been prepared for this project to-date, the conclusion cannot be definitively drawn that Policy 11 can be met. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis The following discussion presents a summary of the issues regarding the project and then more detailed discussion of specific reports and responses to reports. Summary. of Issues Illingworth and Rodkin agree with Edward L. Pack Associates on the following points: 1) 4 l dBA is a reasonable existing ambient noise level to use as a baseline; 2) A-weighted measurements on the fast response setting (1/8 second RMS time constant) should be used to evaluate potential noise impacts from the proposed facility; 3) measuring noise at peak levels is not appropriate for this use.Using peak levels is only appropriate in very rare cases, such as for gun shots and sonic booms (see Attachments 6,7, and 8, Illingworth and Rodkin report dated April 16, 1997, Edward Pack response dated June 12, 1997 and Illingworth and Rodkin response dated July 10, 1997, respectively). The primary concerns that Illingworth and Rodkin have with the acoustical analyses done to-date by Edward L. Pack Associates are as follows: 1) there is an unresolved discrepancy between the projected noise levels presented in the original, April 8, 1996 report, which states that the noise level resulting from tennis play would be 58dBA, and the amended report issued after Mr. Pack and Mr. Salmon did joint measurements which implies that a range in the noise levels from 59 to 73 dBA would result from tennis play; 2) mitigation measures cannot be accurately evaluated until projected noise levels have been accurately determined; 3) it appears that a six fo~;t high sound wall would not mitigate sounds generated from a ball hit at an average height of nine feet, which will occur frequently when players are serving the ball. A’ sound wall between 8 and 16 feet in height may be needed to adequately mitigate noise impacts; 4) the discrepancies between the two projected noise levels makes it impossible to determine whether the g.eneral daytime exception allowed in Section 9.10.060(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) applies; and 5) additional information is needed regarding the above items to be able to accurately assess the impacts of the tennis facility. Illingworth and Rodkin Third-party Acoustical Report,.. April 16, 1997 When the Planning Commission directed staff to hire a third-party consultant to review all of the acoustical analyses done to-date for this project, it appeared that one of the primary discrepancies was that Pack and Associates measured maximum noise levels for constant S:lPlanlPladivlPCSR[3009Mid2.sr Page 6 noise generators and Salmon, Inc. measured peak levels for repetitive generators. The two approaches resulted in different conclusions, with the maximum noise levels typically being lower than the peak levels. As a result of these differences, Pack and Associates recommended mitigation that included a six foot high sound wall along the northern property line. Salmon, Inc. recommended mitigation that included 30 to 90 foot high sound walls along the no~’th and west property lines. The reports presented such divergent anticipated noise levels and correspondingmitigationthat the Planning Commission directed staff to hire an independent third-party consultant to review all the acoustical information and return with a recommendation regarding which measures would actually mitigate the noise impacts of the project. Illingworth and Rodkin concluded in their attached April 16, 1997 report that the "peak" verses "maximum" sound measurement debate was obscuring the real concerns with the noise analysis. Illingworth and Rodkin concurred with Pack Associates that it is not appropriate to use the "peak" setting for measuring noise levels in this case. Peak measurements typically over-measurethe impact of a sound, which means that it will register louder on the meter than what the human ear will actually perceive. Illingworth and Rodkin define repetitive peak as fluctuating sound, which when measuring should not be averaged, but should be measured at its maximum level. Illingworth and Rodkin had other concerns about the analysis. They expressed the opinion that the commercial noise limit in the Noise Ordinance (section 9.10.040) should be used rather than the public property noise limit (section 9.10.050) because the tennis facility would be a commercial use. In the event that the public property limit continues to be used, as staff recommends, Illingworth and Rodkin suggest measuring the noise levels at the property line or at a reasonable distance on adjacent property from the property line since 25 feet from the property line would require measuring inside some people’s homes, which would not be an accurate measurement. They also stated that the CEQA analysis should be more comprehensive in its approach and that criteria should be established for defining a "substantial increase" in the sound level, other than the standards presented in the Noise Ordinance and the policies and programs presented in the existing Comprehensive Plan. They were especially concerned about the discrepancies between the projected noise levels presented in the original April 8, 1996 report and those presented in the January 15, 1997 addendum to the original report (see Attachment 6, Illingworth and Rodkin Report, dated April 16, 1997). Due to these concerns, Illingworth and Rodkin stated that they could not comment on the adequacy of the mitigation measures and they did not believe sufficient background information and analysis had been presented. S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRl3009Mid2.sr Page 7 Staff Response to Illingworth and Rodkin Report Staff supports Illingworth and Rodkin’s conclusion that maximum sound levels should be measured, not peak sound levels. It appears that using an A-weighted measurement on the fast-settingwould.result in an accurate measurement of what the human ear will perceive as people play tennis. Staff does not concur with Illingworth and Rodkin’s statement that the commercial/industrial noise limit should be used. The site is zoned PF (Public Facility) and the use on the site will be open to the public for a minimal fee. The appropriate noise limit is determined by the zone district for a site on which a use will be located. The City has always acknowledged that the noise generated on land owned by the public and zoned public facility, such as parks, will occasionally be l’ouder than the noise typically generated from private commercial, industrial or residential uses. A higher noise limit has therefore b~en set for public property, which allows a noise level 15 dB above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet. Staff has typically measured the noise levels at 25 feet from a property line. In this case, measuring at the property line, or at a reasonable distance from the property line on adjacent property, is more appropriate because the 25 foot distance may be within someone’s house, which would not be a reasonable, location for the measurement to be taken. Staff also does not agree with Illingworth and Rodkin’s statement that criteria should be established other than that in the Noise Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan for establishing compliance with CEQA. Staff has traditionally used the two sources as the standard for determining CEQA compliance. Trying to develop an additional standard without an extensive review and analysis of many similar sites and situations would be difficult, at best. Attempting to establish new or different standards for this particular project at this point in its review would introduce more am.biguity into the review of this project. Staffagrees with Illingworth and Rodkin’s general conclusion that the discrepancies in the expected noise levels need to be resolved and that the mitigation measures proposed to-date cannot be evaluated until the discrepancies are resolved and projections can be made that accurately reflect what neighbors will hear as people play tennis on the subject site. Pack Associates Response to Illingworth and Rodkin Reporti, June. 12, 1997 Pack Associates responded to the Illingworth and Rodkin report with explanations about how the measurements were taken and reiterates that Mr. Pack used the A-weighted fast response setting when analyzing expected impacts. He used an ambient noise level of 41 dB when establishing a baseline for his CEQA analysis and used the Noise Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan policies and programs when establishing compliance with CEQA. He did this at the direction of Planning staff, who in turn gave him this direction because this S:lPlanIPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 8 same approach had consistently been used by other acoustical consultants preparing noise studies for various projects in the City and had consistently been accepted by staff as adequate. He used the property line as his point of reference when evaluating expected impacts, again at the direction of staff, because this appeared to be the most reasonable and consistently used location for analyzingpotential impacts. He states in his response that the General Daytime Exception allowed in the Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.060(a)) would be applicable to this project, if the applicant agrees to slightly modified hours of operation, because the highest noise level will be 62dB and that falls below the 70dB that is allowed to occur under the Exception (see Attachment 7, response from Pack Associates, dated June 12, 1997). Illingworth and Rodkin Response to Pack Response~ July 10, 1997 Illingworth and Rodkin state that they still have concems about the noise analyses done to- date (as summarized at the beginning of the "Discussion" section) and are not confident about the accuracy of the projected noise levels or that the General Daytime Exception has been adequately addressed. Illingworth and Rodkin did state that they agree with several parts of the Pack Associates analysis as outlined in the "summary" subsection above (see Attachment 8, response from Illingworth and Rodkin, dated July 10, 1997). Appellants Response to Illingworth and Rodkin Report, July 2~ 1997 Letters have been received from two of the three appellants regarding the Illingworth and Rodkin April (see Attachments 9 and 10, letters from W. Wang and J.Abraham/N.Fisher, both dated July 2, 1997). The first of the two letters expresses confusion about the statements in the Illingworth and Rodkin report regarding whether or not to measure peak levels or maximum levels (see Attachment 9, Letter from W. Wang). The letter continues by comparing commercially run basketball courts to the tennis facility and states that the experience of having two commercially run outdoor basketball courts within 40 feet of bedroom and living room windows would be very disruptive. Staff believes the items presented in the "Discussion" section of this report may help clarify the issue of peak verse maximum noise levels. Staff has no information to provide on the acoustical impacts of basketball courts. The second letter also discusses many of the issues outlined above in this staff report (see Attachment 10, Letter from J. Abraham and N. Fisher). The issues include: the peak verses maximum noise level; appropriateness of proposed mitigation measures; ambient noise levels; commercial/industrial noise limits verses public property noise limits; the General Daytime Exception and its applicability to this project; CEQA analysis; and the Declaration of Policy section of the Noise Ordinance (see Attachment 10, letter and material from J. S:lPlan[PladivlPCSRl3009Mid2.sr Page 9 Abraham and N. Fisher, dated July 2, 1997). The additional concern the second letter raises under the CEQA discussion is in reference to the option to lease and whether the option is invalid because the applicant has failed to comply with CEQA requirements (see page 6 of Attachment 10). Staff maintains that the applicant is in the process of attempting to show their compliance with CEQA and the fact that the process is not yet complete does not render the option to lease invalid. Assumptions to Include in Additional Acoustical Analysis Staff believes that the original and amended acoustical reports prepared by Pack Associates and the review by both V. Salmon and Illingworth and Rodkin have clarified some of the important issues surrounding this project. To reach a final conclusion, however, and to answer the remaining questions as outlined in the "Discussion" sections of this report staff recommends that a consultant be hired to complete another acoustical analysis. If an additional acoustical study is pursued, the following assumptions and factors should be included in the analysis. The existing ambient noise level should be considered 41dBA. This is only l dBA above the minimum allowed to be considered by the Noise Ordinance and the difference is negligible. A-weighted measurements on a fast response setting (1/8 second RMS constant) should be used to assess potential impacts. o Elements to be measured in the acoustical study should include: balls hit against rackets; balls hit against wallsi tennis shoe squeaks; ball machines and any other noise that results from devices or apparatus associated with the functions on the site. These devices and apparatus should be clearly identified in the analysis. The study should not include noise generated from clapping or voices because these are not sounds resulting from devices and the Noise Ordinance does not regulate these types of noises. o The applicability of the general daytime exception should be analyzed and a discussion should be included as to why it does or does not apply. o Evaluate the expected increase in the noise levels, which will result from the project, against the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance standards for public property, Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and against the existing ambient noise S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 10 level. Estimates of expected noise levels should be made at the subject site property lines, or at a reasonable distance on adjacent properties from the property lines, since 25 feet from the property lines would place the measurement inside some residences, which would not result in a practical reading. The reasonable distance shall be determined by the acoustical consultant and the rationale for using the distance should be fully explained in the report. Use compliance with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance and applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs to determine compliance with CEQA. If the project can meet Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan standards, with any needed conditions, determine that the project will have less than significant impacts with regard to CEQA. Public Participation At the Zoning Administrator hearings in June, July and August 1996, 12 people spoke in opposition to the use permit and a petition with 18 signatures was submitted in opposition to the proposal. The points raised in opposition are presented in the letters of appeal and are summarized in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated November 13, 1996 and its attachments). Five people spoke in favor of the application stating that the overall proposal was a positive addition to the recreational opportunities in the City. At both the November 13, 1996 and January 29, 1997 Planning Commission hearings, the three appellants spoke in opposition to the application focusing primarily on their belief that the noise analysis was incomplete. The acoustical engineer hired by the appellants also presented his information regarding how noise measurements should be made for this type of use and explained why he believed the original acoustical analysis is incorrect (see attachments 11 and 12, Planning Commission meeting minutes, dated November 13, 1996 and January 29, 1997, respectively). The applicants spoke in favor of the project as did their acoustical consultant (see Attachments 11 and 12). Public notice was sent to the local newspaper and to all residents and utility customers within 300 feet of the subject site informing them of the July 30, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 11 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission can recommend one of the following actions to the City Council: Direct staff~o hire a consultant to complete a new acoustical study for the proposed project using the assumptions presented in the’Discussion section of this report or as recommended to be modified by the Planning Commission. 2.Deny all appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with conditions. ° Deny all appeals and modify the Zoning Administrator’s approval by adding or modifying findings or conditions. Approve any or all of the appeals, which would result in a denial of the Use Permit and the inability of the tennis center to locate on the property. To make recommendation 2,3, or 4, the Planning Commission would need to find that sufficient and accurate acoustical information exists for the project and that the information supports the Negative Declaration recommendation being made on the permit. To make recommendation 4, the Planning Commission would need to make findings for denial of the Use Permit. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of any of the above actions. The cost of personnel to enforce conditions of approval is part of the general fund and is not an additional expense over and above or.dinary operating costs. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A Negative Declaration was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on May 31, 1996. The Negative Declaration may be amended as a result of another acoustical analysis being completed for the project. STEPS FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION If the Planning. Commission recommends, and the applicant agrees to fund an additional acoustical analysis, the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit appeal hearing will be continued until such time as the analysis is completed, staff can review it and notices for a new public hearing can be distributed. If the Planning Commission does not concur with the need for further acoustical study or the S:lPlan[PladivlPCSRl3009Mid2,sr Page 12 applicant does not agree to pay for the study and the item is forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for denial, it would be scheduled for the August 11, 1997 Council meeting so that the 30 day time requirement stipulated by Section 18.92.060 of the PAMC will be met. Staff will request a continuance of the item to September 15, 1997, due to the complexity of the issue and the full agenda on August 11, 1997. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Proposed Findings for denial of the Conditional Use Permit Revised Statement from CSI regarding tournament play Planning Commission staff report, dated November 13, 1997, with 16 attachments Memorandum to Planning Commission, dated January 24, 1997 Planning Commission staff report, dated January 29, 1997 Illingworth and Rodkin Report, dated April 16, 1997 Edward L. Pack Associates response, dated June 12, 1997) Illingworth and Rodkin response, dated July 10, 1997 Letter from W. Wang, dated July 2, 1997 Letter from J. Abraham and N. Fisher, dated July 2, 1997 Planning Commission meeting minutes, dated November 13, 1997 Planning Commission meeting minutes, dated January 29, 1997 COURTESY COPIES Linda Stebbins Jensen, Director, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto, Atm: Janet Freeland, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Mami 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 Alto, CA 94306 David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei-Dhein Tung, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 George Stem, 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 S:[PlanlPladivlPCSRl3009Mid2.sr Page 13 Prepared by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Project Planner:Lisa Grote, Zoning Adminis~ator., .,"?. , DivisionJDepartment Head Approval:i_. .~i,~- Ja~ E. Gillilan~ Acting Chief Planning Official S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 14 ATTACHMENT1 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF 96-UP-1 The proposed use at the proposed location will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that the acoustical analysis for the project does not sufficiently verify that noise impacts on surrounding property can be mitigated to meet the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code); and °The proposed use will not be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the acoustical analysis for the project does not sufficiently verify that noise impacts from the use can be mitigated to meet the standards stated in Program 35 of the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. S:IPIanlPIadivlPCSRI3009Mid2.sr Page 15 TOi Attachment 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: November 13, 1996 SUBJECT:Appeals of 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: Deny the three"app.eals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a CUP (conditional use permit),-allowing the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) with related parking, landscaping, landscaped park area and bathroom facilities, based on the findings presented in the Zoning Administrator’s August 15, 1996 approval (see Attachment 1). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The site is a flat 2.34 acre mid-block parcel located in the 3000 block of Middlefield Road in the Midtown area. It is currently occupied by four tennis courts in poor repair. Project Description Application for Conditional Use Permit: A [ PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 1 On January 8, 1996, Community Skating, Inc. applied for a Conditional Use Permit to redevelop the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Club site. The proposal includes refurbishing the four existing courts and reorienting two of them and adding a fifth tennis court. In addition, a passive park area and restrooms would be added at the east side of the site. The landscaped park area is intended to provide a calm area between the tennis courts and the condominium development on the east side of the subject site. Spectator seating is also planned to be located in the area between Court 3 and Court 5. A complete project description is attached to this report (see Attachment 2 - Application materials and Project Description). Zoning Administrator Approval: After holding two public hearings on the proposal, on August 15, 1996, the Zoning Administrator granted approval of the use permit, with 24 conditions, which allowed the operation of a private Outdoor Recreation Service (tennis facility) as presented in the plans and written material received April 2, 1996 (see Attachment 1 for findings and a full list of conditions). Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decision: Three appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision have been received. One appeal is from the Middle field Road Homeowners Association. One is from Wei Wang, a resident of Price Court. The third appeal is from Natalie Fisher and John Abrahams, two residents of Ellsworth Place. The issues raised in all three appeal letters are addressed in the "Discussion" section of this report, but generally.address the belief that a tennis facility is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses, the noise and traffic analyses for the project are incomplete, that it will consume too many City resources, and the conditions will not adequately protect the residents in the area. Project History. The site and the contiguous property occupied by the Winterlodge are owned by the City of Palo Alto. The land and facilities were acquired in a land exchange by the City after a voter initiative to retain these recreational uses was approved in 1985. The ice skating rink has been leased to CSI since 1987, and has operated under conditional use permit 89- UP-50 since 1989. The tennis courts and swimming pool were, until 1984, occupied by the former Chuck Thompson Tennis and Swim Center for many years. Since the Chuck Thompson Club use ceased, the tennis courts have been intermittently used by the general public, but the pool has been closed. The pool on the site was removed in summer 1996. The four existing tennis courts have not been routinely maintained and are in poor repair. A I PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 2 On May 1, 1995 the City Council approved the option to lease agreement with Community Skating Inc. allowing lease of the site for use as a tennis facility, although the number of courts was not specified. The Council stated that a recreational use was appropriate for the site and that the specific proposal should be reviewed as part of the use permit process (see Attachment 3 - 5/1/95 City Council minutes). Table 1 summarizes the pertinent information re~arding the site. Applicant:Linda Stebbins Jensen on behalf of Community Ice Skating, Inc. Appellants: Property Owner: Middlefield Road Homeowners Association Ms. Wei Wang Ms. Natalie Fisher and Mr. John Abrahams City of Palo Alto Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:127-53-13, 14 and 15 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Existing Land Use:. Surrounding Land Uses: Major Institution/Special Facility Public Facilities (PF) Four tennis courts with related parking and landscaping North: South: East: West: Single-family Residential Middlefield Road and Multiple-family Residential Multiple-family Residential Matadero Creek and Single- family Residential POLICY IMPLICATIONS The 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 Schools and Parks states that privately-sponsored community activities should be encouraged. The tennis facility will be operated by a private entity which will provide a A I PCSR13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 3 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 Levels, L10". For residential uses, the acceptable indoor standards are 50 dBA and outdoor standards are 65dBA. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis The primary issues raised by appellants at the June 20 and August 1, 1996 Zoning Administrator public hearings and in the three letters of appeal include the following assertions: 1) a tennis center with teaching and minimal spectator facilities is not a "low- intensity" use and not compatible with surrounding residential uses; 2) there is a lack of documentation that CSI can operate a f’mancially successful facility; 3) additional cost will accrue to the City to subsidize the operation of a tennis facility especially in regard to increased police and zoning enforcement personnel; 4) the citizens of Palo Alto today would not vote to accommodate a tennis facility at the site; 5) the facility is a "sports arena" that is receiving more "rights" than its residential neighbors.; 6) the existing tennis facilities are underutilized and therefore this one should not be approved; 7) housing should be built on the site and that if the tennis facility is constructed surrounding residential property values will decrease; 8) the noise analysis is inaccurate; 9) the traffic analysis is insufficient; and 10) the Planning Commission and City Council should reconsider the use of the site altogether and let the Midtown residents decide how to use the site. An additional letter was also submitted as an addendum to the appeal submitted by Natalie Fisher and John Abrahams, which states that if approved, the tennis facility should have the same type of conditions attached as did the YMCA approval on Ross Road (see Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Letters of appeal from Middlefield Road Homeowners Association, Wei Wang and Natalie Fisher/John Abrahams and an addendum to Fisher/Abrahams appeal, respectively). Staff fmds that appeal grounds 2, 4, 6, and 10 in the previous list are not germane to the findings for conditional use permits. They have not, therefore, been addressed in this report in responding to the three appeals. A I PCSR [ 3009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 4 The issues raised in the three appeals that apply to the two findings required to approve a Use Permit are discussed below within the context of each finding. Each appeal is addressed individually to avoid confusion about appellants specific concerns. Use Permit Finding Number 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, gene~:al welfare or convenience. The Zoning Administrator found that the project would not be detrimental or injurious to surrounding properties for several reasons. The tennis facility will have access to ample parking and will install landscaping which will visually enhance the site as well as accommodate users of the site. The proposed tennis facility and the existing skating facility will share parking. A total of 89 spaces are required for the combined facilities, seven of which are required due to the tennis courts. With the recent construction of 30 spaces in the lot fronting on Middlefield Road, as required by the Conditional Use Permit for the Winterlodge, the number of on-site combined parking spaces totals 98. The additional 9 spaces beyond the zoning requirement are available for tenrfi’s spectators and park users. From the time Council originally reviewed the plans for the property, the location of the proposed fifth tennis court has been moved from a location approximately 20 to 30 feet from the east property line to a location approximately 100 feet from the east property line with a landscaped park area between the court and the condominium units. Staff assumes that this site plan change was accomplished to provide a buffer distance between the court and the adjacent residential complex. The conditions attached to the approval limit the hours of use and require the operators control the hours and to penalize users who violate any of the conditions of approval. The Zoning Administrator considered the project modifications and the conditions of approval sufficient to reduce the impacts on the surrounding area. Middlefield Road Homeowners’ Association Appeal The Homeowners Association appeal is primarily directed toward the first finding of the Use Permit although there is overlap between what they consider to be detrimental impact on surrounding properties and not meeting Municipal Code requirements with regard to noise. "The Use is Not Low Intensity" The Homeowner’s state that the proposed use is a sports arena and teaching clinic and is not a low intensity recreational use. The Homeowners request a defmition for low intensity A I PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 5 recreational use. Staff believes that a low intensity use would be one that accommodates a limited number of participants. The termis facility qualifies as a low intensity use because it will be limited to 100 key-holders and will at most accommodate 20 players at a time if all courts are simultaneously filled with "doubles" teams. The r~oise analysis concludes that the use will not exceed the noise limitations in the noise ordinance and the traffic/parking review indicates that the surrounding streets can accommodate the increased traffic without physical improvements being made to the streets and that sufficient on-site parking is provided to accommodate the use. Staff does not agree that the proposed five-court tennis facility amounts to a sports arena. While bleachers are included in the project description, the proposed facility is not constructed to accommodate large crowds or a variety of uses. It is intended to accommodate a limited number of tennis players with some spectators during daylight hours only. Special events, such as organized tennis tournaments, can be accommodated on the site because they occur during the spring and summer months when the Winterlodge has concluded their season. Should the Commission find a need to limit the number or season for special events, such as tournaments, a condition could be added to the use permit. "Enforcement will Cost the City" The Homeowners assert that approval of the use permit with the conditions attached would tax the City’s ability to enforce the permit. Specifically they note the increase in use of the Police Department to handle crowd control and nuisance claims associated with the use of the property as a spectator sports arena. They also note that the extensive terms (conditions) associated with the permit would deplete city resources for zoning code’ enforcement. They speculate that it would be a significant cost to the City to dedicate one phone line exclusively to handle the year-round complaints they expect to make about the facility. They also state that they are frustrated because a condition of approval was not included that would establish a specific person to call if violations occur. The use permit conditions were designed to enable the operator of the tennis facility to handle complaints from affected parties and implement disciplinary measures for key- holders that violate the conditions of approval more than twice. Staff finds it unlikely that additional Code Enforcement or Police resources would be needed to handle complaints from neighbors. If the Planning Commission and City Council want to strengthen Condition number 5, regarding a non-business hour phone number for neighbors to call, A I PCSR13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 6 a modification can be made to require the operator of the tennis facility to assign a specific person or group of people to call when violations occur and that a response to those complaints will be documented and available for City review upon demand. Additionally, "good neighbor" conditions, similar to that used in the YMCA use permit, could be imposed. "Traffic Analysis is Insufficient" The Homeowners state that the traffic analysis is flawed and should not be taken into consideration. The Transportation Division originally estimated that 33 new trips would be added to Middle field Road per weekday due to the addition of one more tennis court on the site. The Homeowners were correct in regard to the original analysis, however, that anaiysis was revised when it was brought to the Transportation Division’s attention that the existing facility was not fully used because the four existing courts are in poor repair and the pool is no longer on-site. The revised analysis assumed 20% use of the existing courts. The addition and full use of a fifth court and the full use of the existing four courts would result in 140 average new weekday trips, with 12 occurring during the evening peak hour and a maximum of 160 new trips on Sundays.. The revised analysis also states that given the capacity of Middlefield Road, which is the nearest public street, the additional traffic would be insignificant and not noticeable to residents or drivers, even during the evening peak hour, which is the busiest period of time (see Attachment 16 - Memorandum from Carl Stoffel). The revised analysis further states that the on-site parking and circulation are sufficient to accommodate the additional users of the site. The parking calculation represents all users of the site, including spectators. There are 98 spaces available for use at the tennis facility. The code requirement states that one space must be available for each four-person using the site, based on maximum use. If the maximum number of players is playing tennis at the same time and they all drive separately to the site, twenty spaces will be occupied. The 78 remaining spaces would be available for spectators. "Noise Analysis Flawed" The Homeowners state that the noise analysis is also flawed because the full impact of the noise expected to occur on the site is not analyzed in the study. The Homeowners Association reference John Abraham’s specific objections to the noise analysis. Staff response to those objections is included in the section of this report subtitled "Natalie Fisher and John Abraham’s Appeal". "Proposal Exceeds Site Capacity" The Homeowners state that no recognition has been given to the fact that this site has finite A IPCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 7 parameters that should not be breached. Staff believes that the proposal does not exceed the physical limitations of the ;ite. The fifth court was moved from its originally proposed location so that it would be approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. A landscaped park area was added to further buffer the tennis courts from the adjacent condominiums. Lights will be removed, a key-holder system implemented, noise walls built and hours of operation enforced so that residential neighbors will not be disturbed. Staff believes these items acknowledge the physical setting of the site and its limitations. The two types of uses, residential and recreation, can coexist if the mitigation measures called for in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the conditions of appioval of the use permit are implemented. Likewise, the tennis use and the ice skating use are complimentary in that they are seasonal recreational activities which occur primarily during opposite times of the year. "Decreased Property Value" The Homeowner’s also contend that approval of the tennis facility will result in the decreased value of residential property in the immediate area and that property owners can legitimately request a 20 30% reduction of their property taxes. The Zoning Administrator found no evidence in the punic testimony or record to support this claim. Wei Wang Appeal Ms. Wang’s appeal also primarily addresses the first fmding that must be made to approve a use permit, but again, there is overlap between her assertion that there is a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and Finding number 2, which addresses compliance with municipal code requirements, and her statements that the requirements of Chapter 9.10, Noise, of the Municipal Code has not been met. "Noise Impacts Insufficiently Mitigated" Ms. Wang states that the noise analysis establishes that the noise levels generated by tennis balls will exceed levels established by the Noise Ordinance and that nowhere in the analysis is it guaranteed that the sound walls will result in compliance with the noise ordinance. She also expresses concern regarding the use of loud speakers during tournaments. The noise analysis for the proposed tennis facility states that there would be minimal violations of the noise ordinance if no mitigation were incorporated into the project. The consultant recommends mitigation that will reduce the noise levels to acceptable standards (see page 5 of Attachment 8 Acoustical Analysis prepared by Edward Pack and Associates). The mitigation has been included in the conditions of approval for the use permit (see condition 9 of Attachment 1) and will ensure compliance with the Noise AI PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 8 Ordinance. If the Commission desires, a condition prohibiting the use of loudspeakers during tournaments could be imposed, or a restriction on the number of special event tournaments could be added. "Trees Removal Will Cause a Negative Impact" Ms. Wang’s next point is that mature trees will have to be removed to construct the required sound walls. An examination of the sit~ plan and arborist report, both received August 2, 1996, show this statement to be incorrect. Five of the 17 mature trees on the site will be removed due to their poor physical condition and overcrowded placement. Two of these trees are located along the north property line toward the eastern end of the site. One tree is located at the south end of the eastern property line. The fourth and fifth trees are located in the portion of the site where the fifth tennis court and the landscaped park area are proposed. These five trees are being removed due to poor health and not to construct sound walls. The existing healthy trees along the north and east property lines will remain. There is sufficient room to build sound walls and retain trees. All trees to be removed will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio and will be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). While the appellant is justified in her concern that the construction of wall footings could have potential to damage property line trees, a condition to require tree protection measures is included in the use permit as Condition 20. Ms. Wang also questions whether residents can be assured of an aesthetically pleasing wall. The walls and entire site plan will also be reviewed by the ARB for compliance with architectural standards. "Residents Concerns Not Addressed by Decision" Ms. Wong refers to a petition signed by every resident with property adjoining the north property line in opposition to the use permit. She questions whether their objections have been taken seriously. The Zoning Administrator attempted to respond to the concerns of the residents along the northern boundary of the site by requiring the sound wall along the north property line, which will bring the site into compliance with the noise ordinance and by limiting tennis play to daylight hours only and by requiring the removal of light fixtures that are located on the site, and some condition protecting trees and requiring replacement tree planting for those removed. "Reduced Property Value" Ms. Wang raises a concern similar to that raised by the Homeowner’s Association in regard to reduced property values. Ms. Wang references real estate agent estimates, but no evidence that property values would be reduced as a result of the tennis facility has been presented. AI PCSR13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 9 Natalie Fisher and John Abraham’s Appeal Ms. Fisher and Mr. Abraham divided their appeal into two parts: 1) General comments by Ms. Fisher; and 2) Technical comments regarding the noise analysis and traffic study by Mr. Abraham. Many of Ms. Fisher’s comments have been addressed in the staff response above to comments made by the Homeowner’s Association and Ms. Wang. "Intensification of Use Will Create Impacts to Neighbors" Ms. Fisher states that the proposed project consisting of five tennis courts, bathrooms and landscaped park area will have far greater impact on the neighbors than the most recent use, which consisted of four infrequently used tennis courts. Evaluation of the impacts of the project used the four infrequently used tennis courts as the base for existing impact and then compared that to the proposed project impacts. Staff finds that although the proposed use may have a greater impact than the most immediate previous use, the site can accommodate the increased use as long as mitigation and conditions of approval are implemented. Ms. Fisher also comments that there may be loudspeakers associated with the use. Conditions limiting loudspeaker use and special event control could be added by the Planning Commission. "Noise Wall Needed Along Western Property Line" Ms. Fisher also requests that a sound wall be included along the western property line adjacent to Matadero Creek. The noise analysis concluded that the project will meet noise ordinance requirements without this wall and that surrounding residential areas are not expected to experience unacceptable noise levels from the subject proposal, causing them ¯ to exceed the standards in the Comprehensive Plan. The analysis prepared used an L90 standard, but staff has subsequently confirmed with Mr. Pack that applying the L10 standard in the Comprehensive Plan would also comply. Adding the wall was discussed at the Zoning Administrator hearings and was not made a condition of approval for three reasons: 1) it is not needed to meet the noise ordinance; 2) the effect of the wall is unknown and it may not reduce the noise substantially from that which will occur without the wall; and 3) the residential area is not expected to receive impacts based on noise standards in the Comprehensive Plan for acceptable noise levels. Ms. Fisher claims that the noise analysis did not consider that the channelized creek bed will increase noise for houses located along Ellsworth Drive. The noise analysis took existing conditions into consideration and determined that the noise ordinance would be met or Comp Plan standards exceeded without the sound wall along the western property line and with the presence of a channelized creek. A I PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 10 "YMCA Conditions Should Apply Here" Ms. Fisher states in her addendum that if the use permit is allowed to stand, conditions similar to those attached to the YMCA on Ross Road should be added. Staff fmds that the YMCA was a major expansion of an existing facility with much greater usage .that the proposed project. The Environmental Impact Report for the YMCA revealed many potentially significant impacts which were not determined to result for the subject application through the mitigated negative declaration environmental analysis. Any significant impacts revealed for the subject project have been addressed with mitigation measures. Staff does find that a "good neighbor" condition like that which exists for the YMCA, which has been applied to many use permits through the years where the neighbors and the permit holder are not on good terms, might be worth considering.Refer to the Alternatives Section for the wording of that condition. "Inadequate Noise Analysis" Mr. Abrahams states that the noise analysis is insufficient because human voices are not addressed in the noise analysis. The applicable section of the Municipal Code, Section 19.10.050(a), covers mechanical equipment, but does not address human voices. Mr. Abraham contends that tennis players frequently shout to each other, instructors yell at students and spectators cheer from bleachers. Generally, Mr. Abraham’s letter presents an alternative method of evaluating noise impacts, which uses different data and ambient noise levels than that of the professional acoustical consultant. The Zoning Administrator relied on the professional acoustical consultant and the Noise Ordinance and standards in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan when making her decision, consistent with finding #2. Use Permit Finding Number 2: 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. The Zoning Administrator found that the project will meet this finding because 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, all applicable requirements of Title 18, Zoning, are met such as parking, landscaping, and setbacks and commercial recreational uses are allowed with a use permit if development requirements can be met and the appropriate findings can be made. A I PCSR13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 11 The Environmental Resources Element states in Policy 11 that the City should "Ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecess.ary 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 Levels, L10". For residential uses, the acceptable indoor standards are 50 dBA and outdoor standards are 65dBA. The acoustical analysis, which was based on a L90 standard, has been confirmed by Mr. Ed Pack to indicate that noise generated by the project will not cause the adjacent residential areas to be subject to unacceptable noise levels per the L10 standards in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional issues regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 were not raised in the appeal letters. Public Participation At the Zoning Administrator hearings on June 20 and August 1, 1996, 12 people spoke in opposition to the use permit application and a petition with 18 signatures was submitted in opposition to the proposal. The points raised in opposition are presented in the three letters of appeal and are summarized in this staff report (see Attachments 9, 10 and 11 - minutes of 6/20/96 and 8/1/96 Zoning Administrator hearings and Petition against application, respectively). Five people spoke in favor of the application stating that the low fee would enable a wide variety of income levels to become key-holders and that the overall proposal was a positive addition to the recreational opportunities in the City (see Attachments 9 and 10). ALTERNATIVES_ The Planning Commission can recommend the following alternatives to the City Council: Deny all appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with 24 conditions. Deny all appeals and modify the Zoning Administrator’s approval by adding or modifying findings or conditions. Conditions could be drafted that would limit the facility from having spectator facilities, a fifth court; restrooms ball machines and practice walls, use of loud A I PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 12 speakers, or special events. Another condition which might be considered to potentially reduce the amount of enforcement obligation returning to the City and to shift more of the "problem-solving" responsibility to the permit holder and neighbors directly are "good neighbor" conditions similar to that applied to the YMCA and some other institutional uses which read: The applicant will appoint a neighborhbod liaison who may be contacted by neighbors of the project site during all hours of operation and during special events to voice complaints about noise violations or other disturbances. The liaison will be provided the authority to correct any violation of the use permit conditions and to make every effort to avoid disturbances to the neighbors. The name and phone number, and any changes thereto, of the liaison will be provided to the Zoning Administrator so that the City has continuous notice of the identity of the liaison. The applicant will schedule regular meetings with 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. Following the first year of semiannual meetings, the meetings may be held once yearly, with consent of the neighbors. Approve any or all of the appeals, which would result in a denial of the use permit and the inability of the tennis center to locate on the property. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City has a result of any of the above actions. The cost of personnel to enforce conditions of approval is part of the general fund and is not an additional expense over and above ordinary operating costs. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A Negative Declaration was approved by the Director-of Planning and Community Environment on May 31, 1996 (see Attachment 12). STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Proceed to the City Council on December 9, 1996 for final action on the appeals. A I PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Zoning Administrator Decision, dated August 15, 1996 Application materials and project description. City Council minutes dated 5/1/96 Letter of Appeal from Middlefield Road Homeowners Association Letter of Appeal from Wei Wang Letter of Appeal from Fisher/Abraham , Addendum to Fisher/Abraham Appeal Acoustical Analysis-by Edward Pack and Associates Minutes from June 20, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing Minutes from August 1, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing Petition in Opposition to application Negative Declaration Location Map Letter of Support from Edward L. Hickey Letter of Support from Bill O’Brien Memorandum from Carl Stoffel Plans [Commission members only] COURTESY COPIES: Linda Stebbins Jensen, Director, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 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 94303 Shirley Gee, 844 Prospect Avenue, Oakland, CA 94601 G. Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road, #203, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Stephanie McClymonds, 740 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei-Dhien Tung, 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 94301 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Prepared by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Project Planner:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Division/Department Head Approval: ./~-.g~f ~~ ¯ Nancy Maddox i~ytle, ~hief Planning Official A I PCSR 13009Midd.lg 11-07-96 Page 14 Cityof Palo Alto Department of P lannin g and Community Environment Planning Division Application No. 96-UP-l: 3009 Middlefield Road Use Permit 96-UP-1 is approved for the operation of a private Outdoor Recreation Service (tennis facility) 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, as per attached plans, at. 3009 Middlefield Road, Public Facilities (PF) Zone District, Palo Alto, California. Project approval is based on the following findings and is subject to the conditions listed below. FINDINGS 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 by the 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 96UP1, I g 250HamiltonAvenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415. 329.2240Fax August 15, 1996 Page 1 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. 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. CONDITIONS o ° ° 96UP1. I g 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). 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 Sunday. 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 shall have 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. Personnel of the tennis facility shall be available during all business hours to address neighborhood concerns regarding noise at the facility. 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 Palo Alto Planning Division and shall be made available by the operators of the tennis facility to any interested party upon 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 August 15, 1996 Page 2 facility commences. The five trees to be removed from the site shall be replaced with ten new trees planted in the park and areas adjacent to the surrounding residential uses. In addition, the applicant shall replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of all replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The applicant shall implement the recommendation on page 5 of the acoustical analysis done for the project, hereby incorporated by reference, to require the applicant to construct a six-foot high wall along the entire length of the north property line. If all or a portion of the existing fence is to be used, the applicant shall show that the fence section is at least 6 feet above the finished elevation of the tennis courts and that is complies the requirement to be "air-tight". All other fencing on the site shall be constructed as shown on the plans received April 2, 1996, on file in the City of Palo Alto Planning Division office. All sound walls shall be reviewed by the ARB as part of their review of the project. 10.A row of evergreen trees shall be planted along the edge of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement between the tennis courts and Matadero Creek such that a planting screen is provided between the courts and the residences on the other side of the creek. The tree species and spacing shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Final landscape and irrigation plans for the entire tennis facility site shall be reviewed by the ARB and the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the Utilities Department and shall be subject to all conditions attached by the ARB and Marketing Division. Installation of an irrigation-only water meter shall be required. 11.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. 12.The applicant shall submit a f’mal 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 properties are not altered (per Section 16.28.270 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). 13.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 96UP1.lg August 15, 1996 Page 3 Building Inspection Division. 14.The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 15.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. 16.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. 17.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 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. 18.The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB and shall be as accessible as possible. 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. 21.Tree protection methods to be used during’ construction shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division staff and the ARB. 22.The project shall be in compliance with all handicapped access standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspections Division. 23.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 96UP1. I g August 15, 1996 Page 4 emergency. Knox box applications can be obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Prevention Bureau. 24.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). LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator August 15, 1996 NOTE This decision does not constitute final action on the use permit for which application was made. If any interested party is not satisfied with this decision or the attached conditions, the decision may be appealed by filing a written letter of appeal, appeal form and appeal fee with the Office of the City Clerk and Planning Divisions on or before August 26, 1996. The appeal will be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council. If no appeal is received by the above-mentioned date, the applicant will receive a copy of the final decision letter in the mail. A copy of the final decision letter should be presented to the Building Division when applying for any building permits for the project. Linda Stebbins Jensen, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Janet Freeland, City of Palo Alto, Real Estate Division M.arni Barnes, 846 Boyce, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Shirley Gee, c/o 844 Prospect Avenue, Oakland, CA 94601 G. Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road, #203, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Stephanie McClymonds, 740 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, #206, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei-Chien Tung, 3073 Middlefield Road, #202, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middle field Road, #101, Palo Alto, CA 94306 George Stern, P.O. Box 51590, Palo Alto, CA 94303 96UP1.lg August 15, 1996 Page 5 John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 96UP1. I g August 15, 1996 Page 6 AlOPL ICA-T-IO CITY OF PALO ALTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ~~AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT _~TE RECEIVED ILE , BER UP- FILE NUMBER 9G -- / (~) A~, ATION FEE(S) FEE(S)VF Z, O0 RECEIPT# ~ " O0 ~ 250 HAMILTON AVE., PALO ALTO, CA.94301 (415)329-2441 (~) APPLICANT REQUEST ~ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ~HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT [~DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION ~HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION @ PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, ZONE DISTRICT <~P~ ASSESSOR’S P.ARCEL NUMBER 1~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT E~] VARIANCE E~]SITE AND DESIGN E~]ZONE CHANGE r---]SUBDIVISION r--l PARCEL MAP CA 127-53-131127-53-14/127-53-15 (~REOUESTED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED ACTION Conditional use permit for Tennis Center: I). addition of I court, 2). refurbishment of 4 existing courts, 3). construction of restroom and ~nack patio.,4) landscapinq for tennis center, 5).......parking: asphalt, re- s~riping of spaces. ** See Project Description letter attached. APPLICANT ONLY THE APPLICANT WILL BE NOTIFIED OF MEETINGS, HEARINGS, OR ACTION TAKEN. N~IE Linda Stebbins Jensen (Director)PHONE 415/493-4566 ADDRESS 3009 Middlefield Road CITY Palo Alto STATE CA ZIP 94306 ~PROPERTY OWNER N~E City of Palo Alto PHONE. 415/493-4566 ADDRESS 3009 Middlefield Road CITY Paln Alto STATE CA ZIP... _94306 ~ ,. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE PROPE~F.~ DES’CRIBED IN BOX_#3 ABOVE AND THAT I APPROVE OF THE ACTION REQUESTED HEREIN. ~<’,~~.I! . ~ "~I .^ . ¯ ,-- -~- SIGNATURE OF OWNER ~/A.~ DATE ( " "~-~’I (’~ DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE A~TION TAKEN DATE ARCHITECTUKAL REVIEW BOARD PLANNItVG COMMISSION | CITY COUNCIL IZONING ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING YOUR NEXT STEP DECISION [----l APPLY TO THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT (OR OTHER ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT) FOR YOUR PERMIT. [~ FINDINGS ArID CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHED. THE PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES. COMMUNITY SKATING, INC. 3009 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 415/493-4579 WRITTEN PROJECT D~SCRIPTION Swim and Tennis Club site. CSI proposes a three phased project over the first five years of the lease period. During phase one, CSI will take responsibility for development of the shared parking areas on the site. The second phase will be the refurbishment of the four existing tennis courts. The second phase of the project will include construction of one tennis court in a park-like setting adjacent to the existing Winter Lodge ice skating facility. The third, and final phase, will be construction of restrooms and a picnic area. The Community Skating, Inc. Board of Directors has authorized a commitment of up to $i00,000 for the first two phases of this portion of the project. Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC) has requested that two courts be re-oriented to enhance quality of play. Those will be the courts at the front of the facility. The two existing courts toward the rear of the lot cannot be re-oriented due to available drainage, space and set-back requirement. PATC has requested viewing benches. These will be located between the existing courts and the new proposed court. The tennis facility will be operated on a keyed entry system. Keys will be available to the public for purchase on an annual basis. Since the area is not lighted, it will be operated during daylight hours. ~he intent of the landscaped park setting is to provide a quiet buffer zone for surrounding neighbors. Impact on surrounding properties should be minimal. On all property lines the use for this project remains the same as in the past, or substantially lower, as is the case where we are proposing to replace a swimming pool with landscaping. The buffer zone will be an open landscaped area designed for passive recreational use. The plan incorporates several seating areas, located along a strolling path. Each bench is placed with a view to sun orientation, fragrance of nearby plants, and visual interest. There is a low mound with drought tolerant ground cover, as well as a stepping stone path leading under the mature redwoods to a secluded bench. There also is a small lawn area adjacent to the covered eating area for picnics. The selection of materials and design elements are casual, almost rustic in character, to support the design intent of a low key, calming space. It is anticipated that the primary use of the space will be people resting after coming off the courts, and family members who come to enjoy the outdoors while another plays tennis. CSI is Committed to the development of the. tennis facility and completion of the required parking. All projects and facilities on this site will be operated, at no cost the city, by Community Skating, Inc. and by the staff of the Winter Lodge ice skating rink. C~ncil Member Rosenbaum said staff had asked for direction on Item9 and asked for an analysis on whether there should be a FAR limit~n a sending site. In addition, on Item I0, he asked staff to anal~ze the impact of allowing a FAR increase of more than 0.50./ From his ~.~andpoint, for ~ small receiver site, a somewhat lar~4r FAR would ~e\allowed than for a large receiver site. Mayor Simitia~\confirmed that Items i, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,/g, and I0remained on the\list for further analysis by staff. / Council Member Andersen asked the maker and ~econder if the questions incorporate~ some assessment of the impact of the parking deficit. \\\ Council Member McCown und~rstood that t~4 Mayor had included the impact of parking deficit~\in his comments. The environmenta! analysis would comment on i~\gs wel~. Mr. Calonne asked whether the cil had any specific instruction on returning the items to the P~nlng Commlsslon before returnlng to Council. ~../~ ’\ Counci! Member McCown ~as inclined~not to give that direction because the ideas were/coming out of a~rocess w~ich had included the ARB, HRB, and Pla~ning Commission s~gestions to Counci!. x City Manager Jun~Fleming agreed with Council Member McCown since the items gre~iout of issues that had h~en at the Planning Commission an~ were not new to it. Absent\ any direction from Council, syf would not refer the item to the P~anning Commission. ~r S~~ ~anb~ecommended to the maker and secon~, r r of the motiont~~ ’ m e returned to the Planning CommissiDn. AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the iie~m be referred to the Planning Commission prior~to Council iberation. MOTION TO CONTINUE AS AMENDED PASSED 6-0, Schneider "no rZici-pating," Kniss, Fazzino absent. RECESS: 10:20 P.M. -10:30 P.M. o PUBLIC HEARING: Option to Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. for the Property Located at 3005 Middlefield Road Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said the item before Council that night transmitted the response of Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) to Council’s direction of June 13, 1994, regarding the former Chuck Thompson facility located at 305 Middlefield Road and requested the award of an option to lease the site to CSI..On June 13, 1994, Council directed staff to proceed with Phase 1 of the CSI proposal with participation and assistance of the Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC) to explore with CSI and PATC the development of the remainder of the site with low-intensity recreational uses that werecompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, not including a swimming pool use, cost to the City, nor lighted tennis courts, and to return to Council with recommendations. Council had also adopted a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) establishing a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to remove and backfill the pool. The pool was scheduled to be removed during the summer of 1995. In response to the Council’s June 13, 1994, direction, CSIhad proposed a two-phased development for the site. Phase i,the upgrading and operation of the four existing tennis courtsand completion of the landscaped parkin~ lot, was consistent withthe Phase 1 proposal approved by Council on June 13, 1994. Phase 2 included the addition of a fifth tennis court and possible rest rooms, snack bar, and special-event seating. Phase 2 was conceptu- al and would depend upon feasibility and additional City review and approval required during the option period. The proposed option to lease provided for a two-year option period in which’ CSI was required to obtain approval of its plans for the development and operation of the site including a Conditional Use Permit and to show evidence of sufficient finances prior to entering into the lease. Terms of the lease included a term of up to 15 years and a $I00, one-time payment for rent. Nonmonetary consideration was the development and operation of a recreational tennis facility at no cost to the City. Mayor Simitian confirmed five votes of the Council were required to authorize the Mayor to execute the lease and declared the Public Hearing open. John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, lived behind the tennis courts and was concerned about the potential of lighting the courts. Council had directed there be no lights on the tennis courts, and he wanted assurance the directive would be maintained in whatever option/lease might develop. The addition of lights would make a great deal of difference due to additional noise with late night tennis. He appreciated Council’s decision and urged Council to maintain the restriction. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road No. 701, was one of the first occupants of a condominium next door to the Winter Lodge. Hardly a year went by when residents had not appealed to Council for help from a new, worse situation. She implored Council not to allow any a~tivity which would increase noise levels, specifically noise generated from a fifth tennis court which would force many residents to move. Property values would greatly lecrease because of the noise, making it difficult t~ sell their properties° In addition to noise, residents would be subjected to stray tennis balls hitting windows and buildings. She urged Council not to allow barbecue pits that would further pollute homes and the neighborhood. There were other locations more suitable for lighted courts, grandstands, and barbecue pits. She suggested tennis players from other cities should lobby their own cities for such facilities. She trusted Council would stand by its June 1994 decision and ensure there would be no Phase 2 to the project° Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, had been a member of the Executive Board of both Trust for Community Skating and Community 05/01/95 v5-463 Skating, Inc. for 14 years. The group operated the Winter Lodge and had submitted the proposal for development of the former Chuck Thompson Swim School and Tennis Club. Last year, Council had directed staff to work with CSI and PATC toward the development of a recreational facility at the Middlefield site. The whole community and particularly Midtown would benefit from the facflity. The successful Winter Lodge model would be used to operate the program of recreational tennis and skill building for the community’s tennisplayers. She pledged~to work with the community and the PATC to build a first-class recreational fa~lity at no cost to the City. The approval of the lease option brought to fruition the voter directive of the 1984.initiatives. The intent of~.-parkland for parkland was to preserve the land for recreation. The staff recommendation was wholeheartedly endorsed. Jack Morton, founding member of Community Skating, Inc., 2343 Webster Street, expressed his appreciation for the work done by staff on the ~option to lease document. With Council approval, the next phase of a successfu! City/community partnership would begin to unfold. CSI, with the cooperation of PATC, would shortly provide a skill development tennis program. CSI would also appear before the Planning Commission and the ARB to work out final details of the design. CSI would continue to take concerns of the neighbors into consideration. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked Mr. Morton to comment on the financial implications and the practical implications of not proceeding with Phase 2, the construction of the fifth court. Mr. Morton said’the tennis program itself was a deficit program and would not be self-sustaining. Emphasis would be at the introductory leve! with younger members of the community. The initial four-court renovation plus the cost of the parking lot would b~ a significant dollar investment. Phase 2 could not proceed until Phase 1 was funded. Time was needed to implement the funding. If CSI had to fund the project itself, the upgrade would take place over the next two or three years out of the revenues from the skating program. Phase 2 was conceptual and hypothetical, and CSI would return tb Council via the Planning Commission and.theARB with a proposal and final designs. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled the motion had said to look at low- intensity recreational uses for the physical area where Phase 2 would be constructed and to work cooperatively with PATC. She asked whether CSI had examined any other low-intensity recreational opportunities other than a fifth tennis court and, if so, what activities were examined. Mr. Morton said barring a working definition of low intensity,’with low intensity, came a low revenue return. It almost had to be open air, and open air meant more noise. In the original design presented to Council, an attempt was made to put a structure in the area so neighbors would be buffered from the summer activities. Low intensity in his mind might be sand court volleyball, croquet, etc. With staff’s input, CSI tried to work out a process to go through the appropriate reviews. ViceMayor Wheeler clarified CSI had not precluded going in that direction. Mr. Morton said CSI wanted the option to return with a buffer structure and was an issue its board needed to work through. Until CSI obtained £he lease, it was not willing to go any further with plans. Kay Carey, Immediate Past President~ Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC), 4160 Old Trace Road, said PATC strongly supported CSI’s proposal. President M. J. Miller and Chuck Bradley, who hadworked closely with CSI, were also present. Phase 1 allowed for four quality tennis courts. CSI had committed that PATC would be the preferred customers for tournament uses; and during the spring and fall seasons, the courts would be used for PATC league play. Almost 200 people played in the PATC league. CSI had also’ committed to a special rate for PATCo CSI was exploring with PATC going to Phase 2; adding a fifth court would make a big difference in a tennis center. Another important element was having an outdoor snack area with outdoor electricity and rest rooms where people could congregate during adult league and tournament play. Since the courts would not be lighted, there would be no adverse impact on neighbors. PATC 9trongly supported the idea of the youth tennis programs. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road No. 204, urged Council when making decisions on the future of the site to keep in mind.that the noise problems created by the Winter Lodge continued to have severe negative impacts on the neighbors. The Winter Lodge had continued to ignore the problem and had not contacted neighbors in an effort to mitigate any problems. The ~impact on neighbors was not discussed in the current proposal evidenced by the fact the houses. surrounding the site were not shown on any plans. Two items were especially disturbing for the neighbors: i) the project’s fifth court would be within i0 or 15 yards from neighbors’ windows and 2) the barbecue area would make the situation even worse by exposing them to smoke and fumes in addition to the noise. He questioned whether the barbecue was really a necessary part of tennis practice or play. He reminded Council that the Winter Lodge’s original contract stated a sound wall would be constructed to protect neighbors. In reality, a five-foot wooden fence was installed which did not serve as a sound wall. He urged Council to protect the neighbors by specifically stating restrictions such as prohibiting barbecues and excluding the fifth court in the current proposal. Jeff Weber, 169 Byron Street, was a native Palo Altan, had learned to skate at the Winter Lodge, and was an avid tennis player and former member of PATC. He was opposed to awarding an option to lease the. former Chuck Thompson facility to CSI without further~ study and public comment. The Winter Lodge in its present form did not meet the needs of the majority of Palo Alto ice skaters. The ice surface was too small, and the facility operated only six months of the year. The outdoor rink created a noise problem for the surrounding community. The Winter Lodge should be expanded and brought indoors or moved to a new site. An indoor facility would 05/01/95 75-465 solve the noise problem and allow year-round ice skating. Recreational activities, especially for young people, were lacking in Palo Alto. Ice skating was on the rise while tennis was declining. There were 61 public tehnis courts in palo Alto. The City of Oakland was building twin ice rink facilities using a mixture of public and private funds. Funding for the Winter Lodge expansion, or the creation of an altogether new ice rink, would come from private sources with the City’s providing the lease on the land. He questioned CSI’s effort to restrict the size of the Winter Lodge when the land and private funds were available at its present site. He urged the City to support a larger, year-round indoor facility that would meet the needs of the growing community of-~skaters. The option to lease the land to CSI needed to be suspended until more of the Palo Alto community had input. Lila Boil, 1395 Woodland Avenue, Menlo Park, had frequented the Winter Lodge for the past six years. Her three daughters not. only learned to skate but also learned to work cooperatively with teachers and students in presenting ice shows. The Winter Lodge offereda unique opportunity for children and adults to enjoy outdoor and indoor skating where all levels of skaters were accommodated. She was supportive of tennis and skating being offered to the community. Sam Sparck, 302 Poe Street, said the Winter Lodge had been ipproved in 1984 and had been successful both as a business enterprise and as a recreational asset to Palo Alto. The Winter Lodge had shown itself to be financially sound and wel!-managed. The facility was well-maintained and was responsive to the staff requirements and City regulations regarding compatible use of the site. There was no other skating facility in the area.Skaters of al! ages and various skill levels were served.With its history ofresponsibility and success, he urged council to approve the plan for expansion of the Winter Lodge facilities. Jane Hayes, 718 Ellsworth Place, opposed any lighting of the tennis courts. Lights would be an incentive to operate at any time. Hours of operation should be limited from I0 a.m. to dusk. An event the past weekend had caused a traffic overflow and increased noise. She appreciated being a neighbor of the Winter Lodge as it was not too close to her property. The tennis courts were. close and frequently used.by-City residents. The PATC was offering memberships to Palo Alto residents while putting non-residents on list. That led her to believe PATC had an interest in selling memberships to non-residents who would have less respect for the community. She did not understand why CSI was interested in a venture that would not be a money-maker. Memberships were available for less money at PATC, and she questioned whether residents of Palo Alto would spend $I00 to join CSI’s club. As a resident of Palo Alto, she did not believe she should pay the price for non,residents’ pursuit of happiness in tennis. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, submitted a letter (on file in the City Clerk’s Office) and said she used the tennis courts. However, she would not be able to use the courts in the future unless she was one of the lucky I00 people who would be allowed keysto use the 4 or 5 courts. She urged Council to reconsider providing free rent of $6.60 per year for private tennis courts as described by PATC which would benefit I00 tennis players who might not even live in Palo Alto. The proposal forecasted a potential loss of $9,500 per year to’CSI. She asked whether it was fair for skaters to subsidize the private courts. The skaters would not be using the courts and would not have keys. There were many more skaters and people who used the rink than would be able to use the tennis courts. Subsidizing privat~ courts on valuable City land was not fair. The courts were not for the public and certainly not for Midtowners. The potential for other activities would be lost, whether for community gardens or playgrounds for children. Palo A~to had many tennis courts desperately in need of repair and upgrade that supposedly were for children. The courts at Jane Lathrop Stanford were no !onger useable even by the children who attended school there. Those children would not be able ~o use the courts on the Winter Lodge property. If PATC needed lighted courts, Cubberly would be an obvious choice. Cubberly had grandstands, had no housing next door, and had room for expansion. The plan made no economic sense as it provided no recreational benefit to area residents who were primarily renters. It was a specia!-interest proposal for I00 tennis players. She hoped to join PATC in order to have an opportunity to secure one of the I00 keys and asked how people were to be selected. The Winter Lodge should be required to live up to its parking and landscaping requirements, and the City should do its part. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed° Council Member McCown asked for clarification on the limitation of access to the courts. The only reference was on a page which projected potential income and included an estimate of $I0,000 revenue based on $i00 per key and i00 keys. Ms. Freeland said that was the only place. Council Member McCown clarified the intent was to limit keys i00o Mr. Morton said the intent was not to have any limitation. The number came out of discussions with neighboring communities as to how many people might permanently want keys. The keys were for access of non-public hours during daylight hours° Two hundred would be sold, if there were requests. Council Member McCown confirmed the~e was no restriction on the number and no requirement for membership in the PATC to purchase a key. Council Member Huber asked if the $I00 was also a random figure° Mro Morton said in communities that used the system, $I00 seemed to be where the market was and was lower than some. Council Member Andersen questioned, given the skating rink’s limitation in size,.why consideration had been given for using the land to expand and build a covered facility. Mr. Morton said the City had done a study on community rinks, and there~was a cost factor. The program was successfu! in large part because it was an outdoor facility and because it was a limited program during the winter months. Usage dropped off during the summer and higher costs resulted. Most larger rinks were not successful. The community rink fn Stockton required extensive subsidization. To keep a year-round rink would be a tremendous burden. Council Member Andersen said CSI indicated it would not make money on the proposal before Council and questioned whether the snack bar or something else would make it cost effective. Mr. Morton said tennis itself would not make money. In order to make the project a Midtown recreation resource, CSI was willing to bear t~e burden. As a combined winter/summer program, the winter program would make enough money to fund the program and make the improvements. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled similar lessons were available through the City recreation programs when her children were growing up. She questioned whether the situation had changed or whether CSI had done a market analysis that suggested its lessons were different. Mr. Morton believed there Would be a natural transfer from ~he winter program. CSI enjoyed a high reputation among the families who used the winter program. As a summer activity for younger children, CSI would be an accessible and safe area. Based on informal discussions with staff, the City’s teaching programs were personnel intensive and expensive. Resources eliminated over the years through budget cuts led to a decline in those types of programs. CSI would not be in competition with the City but would be enhancing City programs. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked, given a worst-case scenario if the winter program was no longer able to subsidize an already constructed facility after a number Of years had elapsed, in what position the City would be in in terms of its lease. Real Property Manager William Fellman said the City took t~e position with all of its tenants that if there were a problem, the City would listen to the problem and act accordingly° There was.no termination clause in the proposal. Council Member Huber confirmed that Phase 2 was only conceptual in nature and a full review process to analyze such things "as intensity uses in the neighborhood would be done. Ms. Freeland said yes. During the option period, the plans for both the development and the operation .would be reviewed. The Conditional Use Permit process included the review by the zoning administrator, the ARB, the Planning Commission, and the City Counhil. Both Phase 1 and 2 would go through the same process, and environmental assessment work would also be done. Mayor Simitian clarified whether looking at Phase 2 through the process, Council was really approving the Phase 2 proposal absent some "problem" or some inconsistency with the ordinances or environmental problems, or whether the intent was to give Phase 2 a fresh look when it was known what Phase 2 really involved. Ms. Freeland said a condition of the option was that CSI needed to have its plans approved. CSI had indicated conceptually certain things to be considered during Phase 2. If those elements were not feasible or practical from either its point of view or the City’s when more specific development of plans were completed and reviewed, then plans would be changed accordingly. Mayor Simitian said ordinarily when a property owner came before Council with an application, it was known as a quasi-judicial hearing. The property owner had some rights, Council reviewed the application compared to the law, and Council ascertained whether the properhy owner met the requirement of the law. The answer determined whether Counci! approved the application or not. The proposal before Council was very different than Council making an independent determination of whether it either did or did not want a particular use on a particular site based on its legislative judgment about what was good for the community. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said one condition precedent of exercising.the option to lease was the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. To the extent the land use contro! was there, it was retained. The option specifically only called for detailed plans on Phase I; however, if there were no Phase 2 plans, a use permit would not be approved. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council was surrendering any discretion to approve or deny the proposal in Phase 2. Mr. Calonne said no. Whether Council ended up being the final arbiter depended on how the proposal worked through the process. There would be a Conditional Use Permit for Phase 2. Mayor Simitian clarified lighting was not included in the propos~l. Ms. Freeland said Council had directed there be no lights° MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to authorize the Mayor to execute the option to lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) for development and operation of a tennis facility at 3005 Middlefield Road. Council Member McCown understood the. option to lease intended in its language by staff ’to be consisZent with the prior Council action prohibiting any .lighted tennis courts. CSI would have a two-year period within which a variety of conditions needed to be satisfied before exercising the option to enter into the lease. 05/01/95 75-469 One 8f the conditions was further development and refinement of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. She believed if Council supported the action, it was conceptually supporting the direction outlined in the proposal. Therefore, if there was a strong belief that a fifth tennis court was absolutely out of the question, discussion needed to take place that night. One member of the public had suggested another site usage should be made. There had been an opportunity for proposers who wanted to use the sit~ to come forward over a year ago. Council was responding to that Request for Proposa! (RFP) oprocess .the City had put 96rward, the option to lease was the next step, and she urged Coupcil to support it. Mr. Calonne said the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Council was free to add as required conditions in the lease whatever specific development features Council did or did not want. Another way to spell out lights or tennis courts would be to direct amendments to the lease. Mayor Simitian said it was troubling to hear the debate of the near neighbors and operators of the facility who took different views on how the facility had been operated. CSI contended everything had been done to operate a. facility that was compatible with the neighborhood. The neighbors said CSI had not made the effort it should have to be an accommodating neighbor. The fact that the same discussion was taking place that night made him leery of a fifth tennis court and its close proximity to the neighbors. He was not optimistic when the item returned to Council that the same debate would not take place again. If the Zoning Administrator madethe determination through the Conditional Use Permit process, and the decision was appealed, it would work its way to Council. Given the debate which had already occurred, he believed it was inevitable an appeal would happen, and Council .would have to ultimately make the determination. In terms of Phase2, he urged everyone to work more cooperatively. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion because the benefits received by the community of additional courts could be arrived at through alternative ways. The additional recreational area was also not of particular benefit to the Winter Lodge.- The area was not dedicated to parkland; therefore, the City could use it in other ways. He was not convinced a reconciliation would take place between CSI and the neighbors. He was impressed by the generous nature of the neighbors in many instances, particularly those on Ellsworth. Phase 2 was.of concern with respect to issues that had been raised. He recognized a great deal of effort had been expended, but he was not persuaded the direction was the right one to take. Vice Mayor Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase 2. The community had been clear during the debate about the desire to have the larger piece of property used for recreational purposes. In good faith, Council and CSI had gone in the direction to see that plan come to fruition. However, with respect to the fifth court and its location, she had walked the site and determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase 2 O5/Ol/~B 75-470 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it. CSI had said even with a fifth court, the facility would not generate money. She urged CSI in its future planning for Phase 2 to continue to work with the neighbors to determine a low-intensity recreational use for that corner of the property. Council Member Huber said the staff report indicated CSI’s Phase 1 proposal was consistent with Cpu~cil direction. Phase 2 was conceptual, and both would go through the process. Council had indicated that Phase 2 was to be of low intensity, and he did not consider what had been proposed as a done dea!. He had serious doubts regarding the Phase 2 proposal. He questioned whether the fees for using the courts could be reduced. The lower the number was, the more opportunity for it to truly be a usage for the community and accessible to everybody. Council Member Schneider supported the project and thought it was a wonderful example of City/community partnerships. Given the financial situation of the City, it was important to look for more opportunities for partnerships. The project was also a terrific enhancement for the Midtown area.. She had the same concerns for Phase 2 and hoped that by approving the project, a private membership tennis association would not be created. Whatever was done, the neighbors should not be adversely affected. Mayor Simitian recalled a Council discussion regarding The Edge nightclub with respect to loud rock music until 4 a.m. and hundreds of young people all in close proximity to scores of multifamily units. Both sides found a way to make it work when they had to make it work. Solutions had been found for far more challenging situations than the proposal before Council that evening when the will was there on the part of all the folks involved. He encouraged those involved to work more cooperatively in the future° Mayor Simitian recalled a Council discussion regarding The Edge nightclub with respect to noise from loud rock music until 4 aom. and hundreds of young people all in close proximity to scores of multi-family units. Both sides found a way to make it work when they had to make it work. Solutions had been found for far more challenging situations than the proposal before Council that evening when the will was there on the part of all the folks involved° He encouraged those involved to work more cooperatively in the future. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Andersen "nD," Fazzino, Kniss absent. ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 11:45 pom. ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 1996To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning Administrator . .. _~o~m~ ~Viron~m--~’~" -" ’-" /. /: -~~"~-~" Receipt No.Appli~tion No. ~ ~~ ’" "- - " .-: ~ ~ ." ~/ /"" Name of Appellant . ’..’~-~-~- ....~ ~--~ ~: "~ % ~. Phone(-’"": Address~-~O~ //./ /." ,"- ,,~ .~ /,.~’" ~P - ".,,.;~ .’" / , _ " --"Street ~Zip LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. ;~- .~-~ -~ - Street Address ....~ ’-"7., " ~ Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant)... - Property Owner’s Address -~,,.’ ..- Street °-c~t~ Zone District Zip The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated ;whereby thea:pplication Of , . "" (variance/use permit) (original applicant) was (approved/denied) , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date ...." "Signature of Appellant PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1.Plans ~By:2.Labels ~ -By: 4.3"AppealLetter Application Forms ~By:~~,~, j-,By: ~5.Fee ~By: 12/89 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION 3065-3077 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California 94306 August 22, 1996 To: All Planning Commissioners Subject: AN APPEAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE GRANTING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SPECTATOR AND TEACHING TENNIS FACILITY - POSITION PAPER AGAINST THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS IS - APPLICATION #96-1YP-1, 96-EIA.1 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We represent the Middlefield Homeowners Association next to the Winter Lodge facility and are appealing the Zoning Administrators proposal to grant the Conditional Use Permit as is. Some relevant history, comments, questions, assertions and recommendations are forwarded to support our objection to this Conditional Use Permit. We trust you will find them relevant, consistent with past, stated positions by the Council, and mindful of the majority of the citizens of the City of Palo Alto. A. BRIEF HISTORY, COMlVIENTS, AND QUESTIONS In a City Council meeting held on May 1, 1995, the following key points were made. We have also provided comments and posed questions for deliberation. History: Council directed staff to proceed to explore with Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) and the Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC) the development of the remainder of the site (Chuck Thompson facility) with ’~ow intensity recreational uses that were compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods" a. Comment: Turning the back area of the Winter Lodge area into a spectator sports arena and teaching clinic is not low intensity recreational use. It suggests high volume, 1 intense, non-stop, year round use. The key words are "spectator" and "teaching" facilities. Question: What is definition for low intensity recreational use? Please define for public record. b. Comment: A spectator, sports arena and teaching clinic for tennis is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. CSI’s lack of regard for the surrounding neighborhood is exemplified by the fact that they have not attempted to contact any of the neighbors with regard to any of their proposals or plans and have made no attempt to make their activities compatible with their neighbors needs. This is particularly significant when one realizes that various City Council members (in the May 1, 1995 meeting) noted this lack of concern and specifically directed CSI to make such good faith attempts in the future. Question: What is the definition of "compatible with the surrounding neighborhood"? How can one make a spectator sports complex compatible with residential living? History: CSI to demonstrate evidence of sufficient finances prior to entering into the lease. Comments: "The tennis program itself was a deficit program and would not be self-sustaining" (see comments by Jack Morton, CSI founding member May 1, 1995 City Council Meeting) To date, there is no indication that this will be a financially solvent enterprise. In fact, it appears to be more of a private Club for the exclusive use of a few "die hard" tennis players who have ties with the ice skating community. Question: To whom are these financial statements and profiles to be presented? If it is to the City Council Members, where are they and have they been critiqued by Council staff members? o History: Development and operation of a recreational tennis facility at no cost to the city. a. Comments: There has been an increased use of city resources in the last ten years to mediate the existing spectator sports activity. There is a reasonable assumption that another spectator sports activity would further tax the City of Palo Alto’s limited staff resources. These additional cost to the city are described as follows: 2 (1) Increase use of police department to handle crowd control and nuisance claims associated with the use of the property as a spectator sports facility (See police department logs on increase calls to the Winter Lodge due to noise [e.g. music, crowds, etc.] and traffic issues associated with spectator sports use over the last few years). As the Police Department has already stated, CSI have zero exemption and they would have to take every call coming in to the station regarding the use of this property. Deviation of valuable police resources is a cost to City. The police department would be impacted by their patrol force because now they would have to be available to handle year-round calls in connection with the sports arena. (2) Increased use of City Staff time and effort to enforce the numerous and extensive terms surrounding the granting of the Condition Use Permit. This would result in a deviation of resources from the City Staffers. For example, there would be a monetary cost to the city if one special telephone line had to be devoted exclusively to manage the calls related to the enforcement of Conditional Use Permit’s extensive terms. Of major frustration to the neighbors is the absence of a singular person to call whenever there were violations at the Winter Lodge location. Persistent noise level violations (for which neighbors must actively protest) and breach of permit terms (e.g. to build a solid buffer fence and to have buffer plants) are examples of how the post-permit process really works. b. Comments: There is an assumption that "at no cost" also means at "no loss" to the city as well. Demonstration of such losses follow. (1) Revenue loss to city as a result of not applying the ’~est and highest use" principle to property is significant. In this case, we believe the best and highest use for this location is for a residential project, not recreational. This principle is demonstrated in economic terms below: Premise: Residential property in area is commanding an average of $206/sq. ft. if sold outright 3 Continuing income to the City of Palo Alto from tax revenue generated by residential housing building on the property is at $1.60/sq. ft./a year. Rental property is commanding an average of $1.35 sq. ft. a month or $!6.20/sq. ft./a year or $243/sq. ft. for the life of a 15-year lease.. Conclusion: Thus, entering into a 15-year lease with CSI would result: in a one time loss of approximately $13,266,400 since the property could have been sold outright ($206 sq. ft x 64,400 sq. ft.), for residential purposes and a continuing loss of tax revenue to Santa Clara county during the 15-year lease period totaling $1,545,600 ($1.60 sq. ft./year times 64,400 sq. ft times 15 years). This amount represent a tax base which generates funds for the City of Palo Alto general, fund from which community services are derived. or a lass of rental income of $15,649,200 over 15 years ($1.35 sq. ft. a month times 12 months a year times 15 years times 64,400 sq. ft.) Note: based on approximately 64,400 sq. ft. on the property - 280 ft. deep x 300 ft wide = 84,000 sq. ft. (in back area) minus 140 ft. x 140 ft. = 19,600 sq. ft. (in the back Winter Lodge area) leaving approximately 64,400 sq. ft. representing the area in dispute. Question: If the issue was put to a vote today, would the citizens of Palo Alto agree to issue a free 15 year lease to accommodate a few tennis players (who are not necessarily residents of Palo Alto since there are no "resident only" eligibility requirements for membership) and waive a one time gain of $13M with a county tax base gain of $1.5 M (of which the City of Palo Alto and its citizens are partial beneficiaries) or waive a potential rental income of $15M if the property was developed to its highest and best use or leased to a paying leasee? Can the City of Palo Alto really afford to give away $13-15 M to tennis players? (For example, with 100 keyed members* in the tennis club, the citizens of Palo Alto are issuing approximately $150,000 to each tennis player out of the City’s assets - can golf players, baseball enthusiasts, football players, etc. get $150,000 each to enjoy their respective sports? Where do they line up?) Question: Can it be considered responsible governance to commit city resources and assets to support an activity with so 4 few residential Palo Altonians? Are the elected officials acting responsibly when they given away millions of dollars of assets to one singular group when so many are just as deserving and who may perhaps even have a larger constituency group than the tennis enthusiast? How would the voters view the allocation of $13M of their assets to one special interest group? Compare: The entire Commhnity Services category in the City’s budget gets $16.3M. Within this category, Open Space gets $1.9M and Recreation gets $2.6M. Can we really justify allocating $13M of our assets to a singular sports group for tennis when our entire Community Services category has a budget of $16M which includes such services as libraries, arts and culture, parks, and recreation and which services all 58,575 citizens of Palo Alto. This sets a precedence which cannot be affordably followed. Next we will have the golf enthusiasts asking the City of Palo Alto to lease a piece of land rent-free so they can build a country club, or the baseball league will ask for land for a new stadium rent-free, etc.. Of the 58,575 residents in the City of Palo Alto, only 100 keyed tennis individuals will probably benefit from this $13M windfall. Shouldn’t the $13M be used so the other 58,475 citizens of Palo Alto can benefit from it? *$100 per 100 members per Council Member McCown’s reading from a page out of the CSI proposal in the May 1, 1995 council meeting ASSERTIONS, CONSEQUENCES, AND INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ISSUE: 1. Residential living is not compatible with a sports arena with a competitive spectator element and its provocative impact cannot be mitigated away no matter how many caveats or terms are added to the. conditional use permit. 2. The staff and independent reports are hopelessly flawed having no integrity and should not be given any weight. For example, the traffic report grossly underestimated the traffic impact by using the Chuck Thompson swimming facility traffic data (which is over 15 years old) as a starting point and still does not take into consideration spectator traffic and the congestion which will ensue when both facilities are in simultaneous use. The noise report produced by Edward Pack Associates, Inc. commissioned by CSI, is another example. This group took noise measurements when the tennis courts were not in full use, on days when there was no traffic and in locations where the full impact of the noise could not be included in the collected data resulting in a grossly under expression of the real noise impact to the neighbors. A concerned and technologically knowledgeable citizen (i.e. John Abraham) studied the report and found extensive flaws in the procedures and resulting report and made them part of the public records during the Zoning Administrator’s hearing on August 1, 1996. Many of the objections cited by Mr. Abraham have not been rebutted or contested and yet this report continues to be used to recommend this project and to distort the true impact of this newly proposed tennis facility. Examples are such flaws include: no analysis of "people" noise, use of averages which mask "over the limit" noises, no analysis on continuous noise over long duration of time, and ambient levels used as threshold have contaminant noises included. A further example is the inaccurate account of the public records as articulated by various City Staff members especially on the subject of the 1984 election measure. The most inaccurate rendition of what the citizens of Palo Alto voting for, intended, or covered during the measure is that the citizens of Palo Alto voted for an expanded tennis facility on the old Chuck Thompson tennis/swimming facility. Nowhere in the measure was this stated yet CSI and city staffers in support of the project have persistently and continuously misrepresented this tennis project as a sort of citizens’ mandate when clearly that was not what the citizens of Palo Alto did. It is noted in the public records by one of our City Council members that he thought the measure would fail if tennis was included in the measure so it was specifically excised from the originally proposed language. They apparently believed then as is the case now that there are too many pubic tennis courts as it is. One must wonder why the city staff and custodians for the public record cannot get it right when it is available in.the public records. 3. It was never envisioned that this location would be turned into an ever expanding sports arena especially in light of the fact that it was in the middle of a residential area. The catalyst for retention of this then (1983) non-profiting ice skating facility was more sentimental then sound public policy. There has been no recognition that this location does have limitations with finite parameter which should not be breached. The City of Palo Alto has an obligation to provide leadership and simply say, "this location has expanded to its full limitation with respect to its use.., no other proposals expanding its use will be allowed." 4. The right of "one" neighbor cannot take precedence over the many neighbors who do not want a sports arena with year-long recreational activities in the middle of their neighborhood. Such a move would dramatically and forever change the ambiance and flavor of that neighborhood. The increased traffic and ensuing congestion will convert a quiet residential neighborhood into a less desirable place for property owners to live resulting in a exodus that has already begun due to the earlier decisions made in connection with this property. 5. Losing property owners as residents will bring a more transient population into the area which cannot improve the overall Palo Alto community. One only needs to review the Berkeley and Oakland experience to see what happens when there is a highly transient population or low property owner residents to high renter ratio (i.e. the number of owners living in the city versus the number of renters living in the city). Quite simply, the level of community commitment to the City drops dramatically along with the level of energy and volunteerism which keeps a City vital and focused. 6. Immediate past experience has already demonstrated that extensive city staffing and policing resources had to be diverted to this location due to the ongoing negative impact of an existing spectator sports activit_¥ at this location (i.e. Winter Lodge ice skating activities). To add still another spectator sports facility and teaching clinic facility would further divert limited resources to this location. That is, the point has already been proven: sports arena activities are inherently incompatible with residential living and cannot be mitigated sufficiently to enable harmonious coexistence. A plan which places two forces at such obvious odds with one another can only ensure years of perpetual conflict and animosity. No conscientious and responsible public official should knowingly place incompatible forces together. 7. A Citizen’s right to have a tolerable place to live must take precedent over a citizen’s right to recreate. People cannot pick up and readily move while people can find other places to play, especially in this case where there are 61 public tennis courts and lots of parks for picnic activity. 8. Certainly, the voters of Palo Alto did not empower its political officials to "give away" city funds to special interest groups without ensuring a vast majority of citizens in Palo Alto would be the beneficiaries. Charging a high annual membership fee guarantees that only a select few will be the beneficiary of this "gift" (i.e., rent-free lease) from this City. 9. Existing public tennis facilities are "underutilized" and they are "free" (i.e.~ no membership fees). There is simply no vast majority of beneficiaries save the special interest few who may be politically connected. The absence of tennis players on existing tennis courts proves this point. There are 61 public tennis courts; all of which are underutilized. Where is the market survey demonstrating that this facility will be fully utilized thereby justifying the loss revenue to the City and free lease? 10. There is a gross housing shortage in the City of Palo Alto. There is less than a 1% vacancy rate for rentals. This housing shortage has been evident for well over a decade; hence, the reason this particular 7 area in Midtown was rezoned from commercial to high density residential land back in 1983. The precious assets (the $13-$15 M) of the City should be directed to this acute need; not to duplicate recreational facilities for which there is clearly no demand by the overwhelming majority of the citizens in Palo Alto. 1 I. The residential property owners in the immediate area can legitimately request an immediate reduction of their property tax obligations due to the decrease in property value associated with a sport complex being located next to their residential property (especially if this conditional use permit stands as is). A petition to request this reduction is already in circulation and will result in a 20-30 % tax base reduction for every property owner affected by this decision. This will further erode the city’s tax base and the services that are supported by this tax base. 12. Voters in the City of Palo Alto are entitled to have representatives on the City Council .who represent all of the citizens of Palo Alto, not just special interest groups. The energ~ generated from this issue will no doubt be directed to electing officials who keep the trust of the majority of the residential citizens in Palo Alto. We clearly need to elect officials who support the resident’s and property owner’s right to enjoy their property without having to contend with all of these incompatible use proposals especially where there is no overriding public and compelling purpose. We also need public officials who will not "give away" our limited resources to special interest groups to the detriment of the vast majority’s interest. After all, there are more property owners than "tennis players". The economic resources which are being given away to CSI surely can be better used in the Community Services Department for libraries, arts and culture, park and recreation which are devoted to all citizens not just those who play tennis. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Reverse the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant the Conditional Use Permit. 2. Reconsider exploring a "higher and better" use for this property from which the majority of citizens in Palo Alto can benefit. This proposal for a tennis court is no longer relevant and is outmoded given the current times and more pressing needs in the City for services and housing. We simply cannot "afford" to do this and given away millions of dollars to a sport with declining interest and in which plenty of put~ic facilities (61 tennis courts) are already devoted. 3. Obtain and insist on proof that there is a overriding gain to.be had by the majority of citizens of Palo Alto to justify the "free" lease. 8 4. In the alternative, if the Conditional Use Permit stands, make the following changes: a. Do not permit the property to be used for spectator sport activities (No tournaments with bleachers, cheering spectators, ballpark atmosphere, with peSple wandering the property. The increased traffic (i.e. people and cars) into the area will be unbearable overtime especially when both sports facilities (ice skating and tennis) are in play simultaneously. Also, City Council just approved a development business/residential project down the street on Middlefield Road whose "real" traffic impact is still unknown. Do not add another traffic variable with which the residents must contend. If residents wanted to live in a high density traffic area, they would have moved to one of our local high density urban towns like Oakland or San Francisco instead of Palo Alto. There is already one spectator sport activity on property creating a nuisance and generating conflict with the surrounding neighbors. Spectator sports activity by definition generate high volume use and violates the low intensity recreational use parameter. If this facility must be used for tennis, make it a low intensity tennis facility for participating tennis players only. b. Do not allow this location to be used as a "teaching" tennis facility or clinic. There are 61 public tennis courts that can be used for this purpose. The park and recreation should be teaching tennis to young people at an affordable price at these existing tennis courts. The City should not be providing a free lease valued in the millions so only affluent people can join and get lessons. Local high schools, park and recreation, and local colleges do and can teach tennis. Why would the City want to get into the tennis clinic business with its limited resources and compete with small business owners who are struggling to hang on to their market share of customers and whose earnings are dependent on giving private tennis lessons to this shrinking market of tennis enthusiasts? Again high volume use for this property for any reason violates the low intensity recreational use parameter. c. No additional courts (i.e. no "fifth court"). This additional court is extremely detrimental to the neighbors directly adjacent and next to it. Vice Mayor Wheeler in the May 1, 1995 city council meeting after having actually walked the site "determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court". We agree. Having a fifth court violates the "low intensity recreational use" parameter originally outlined by the City Council and should be definitively eliminated. 9 & Absolutely no public restrooms added to property. Public sanitation activities (e.g. smells associated with toxic cleansers, increase traffic in back area next to condominium, etc.) are offensive and repulsive especially when they are right next to residential property whose windows and doorways face or overlook the public sanitation facilities. The CSI which operates the Winter Lodge have already stated their Winter Lodge staff will be managing the tennis activities. The tennis members can use the Winter Lodge interior bathroom facilities since they will not be in use during the tennis program’s peak season. How many of the council member would like to have public sanitation facilities built right over their backyard fence when there are already enclosed, interior bathroom facilities available right on the property? Anyone who has ever visited a public rest stop along the highway knows the cleanser/urine smell that can be detected the minute you leave your car and even before you actually reach the buildings where the toilets are housed. e. Sign no lease until there is "evidence" of financial viability from the CSIo If no financial viability can be demonstrate, find a paying tenant so the. City can at least get continuing rental income from the property to pay for operating costs or services for citizens of Palo Alto. Perhaps another non-profit community group can demonstrate such viability and pay fair market rent for the property. f. Include in the lease a termination clause where the lease will be terminated if the use of the tennis courts dropped below 200 members and/or fails to generate a monthly/annual income matching the cost of the fair market value of the lease. This will ensure that the City is getting the best use of the property for the highest number of residents in Palo Alto and that it is not servicing the elite few. g.Include in the lease that subleasing is strictly prohibited. h. Reduce the fees for using the courts to enable more moderately incomed residents to participate and to assure accessibility to all. If paying tennis lesson are permitted, give free or vastly reduced rates to low income families so they too can enjoy the same quality of lessons that more affluent families enjoy and to make the sport of tennis more accessible to all young people. Assure that this "$15 M" tennis facility belongs to the entire community, not just the affluent few. Do not permit any 10 mechanical assist device which generate noise to be used during such lessons (e.g. ball machines) or practice walls which are particularly noisy. Respectfully submitted, Charmine Tung, President Middlefield Road Homeowners Association 11 CITY OF PALO ALTO Office, of the City ClerkAPPEAL FROM T.E DEC SlO. OF To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision’ df zonin~t A’o~ tfi~;tt’ator Application No. O, ~- - Lc / Name of Appellant~~ ~_ Address ~ ~: 5 ~ t.~ R Street , C~Zip LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. Street Address ~ c c ff J’)’i ;Jd I~ ’~:,’~ ! ~/ I~ ’7 - 5 t - t <;Zone District Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant)(_ z T Y Property Owner’s Address ~ ~. ~ ~ /} l , ’J 2/~ ~,"~ !~ /-2 ~ Street "-City Zip The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated whereby the application of (variance/use permit) was (original applicant) (approved/denied) for a , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date "~"/~ ~ / ~Signature of Appellant ~/" ~ , ,_ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1.Plans 2.Labels 3.Appeal Application Forms 4.Letter 5.Fee By: By: ~.~,~ By: .By: 12/89 To: From: Date: Purpose: The Planning Commission and City Council of Palo Alto Wei Wang, Palo Alto resident 3054 Price Ct., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Voice: 415 - 856- 0106 E-mail: 75240.63 l@compuserve.com August 26, 1996 ’ To appeal permit "96-UP-l: 3009 Middlefield Rd." Esteemed Members of the Planning Commission and City Council of Palo Alto: I am the owner of the home on 3054 Price Court. I am here today to appeal the use permit "96- UP-l: 3009 Middlefield Road." Although my house is not situated directly behind an existing court, I can hear clearly from my bedrooms and living room every word spoken and each ball hit from the fourth court. The proposed fifth tennis court will be located directly behind my property. The following violations, inconsistencies and incomplete studies have plagued this proposal from the start and, because they have yet to be adequately addressed, are grounds for appeal: According to the "Acoustical Analysis" dated 4/8/96 prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., (on behalf of Winterlodge and submitted to the Planning Com- mission), noise levels generated by tennis balls exceed levels established by the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Ref. (b). Nowhere is it guaranteed that the erection of a sound wall will completely meet with the standards established by the City Ordinance. 2.Logistics and accompanying problems of the sound wall has yet to be addressed: a)Because barely 20 feet separate residential properties from the proposed tennis courts, building a sound wall would most likely mean the cutting down of grand trees currently acting as a natural and elegant divider. b)Are residents assured of an aesthetically pleasing wall ? A petition dated 7/28/96 against the use permit was signed by every resident with property adjoining the north property line. Have our complaints been taken into serious consideration? What, if any, action has been taken in this regards? Finally, it appears that major players are either ill-informed or blantantly in defi- ance City Ordinance Ref. (b). Based on my August 20th conversation with zoning Page 1 administrator Lisa Grote, it is evident that even she can not fully appreciate the facts nor the ramifications of granting the use permit. When asked whether noise levels currently exceed the level stipulated in the City Ordinance, Grote answered, "No." In a separate conversation, a member of the Winteflodge Board of Direc- tors, Jan VanDerLaan, defended the noise violation by saying that noise levels only exceed the ordinance during the serving of a ball. A violation is a violation, regardless of the time and duration of violation. Winterlodge’s extensive plans for courts are as follows: Hours of operation will extend all year round, 7 days a week, spanning the hours of 8:00 am to dark Mondays through Saturdays, and 9:00 am to dark on Sundays. League Play: All five courts, singles and doubles play are available, Mon- days through Thursdays for league usage for 10 out of 12 months a year. Monthly tournaments with the accompanying noise generated by loud speaker and clapping begins at 8 in the morning to 3 or 4 pm both Satur- days and Sundays. Others: Group lessons can be scheduled Mondays through Thursdays all year round. According to this schedule, the noise that violates the Noise Ordinance will be there all day and all year around. Were area residents to learn of the potential and full extent of the disturbance, they would undoubtedly be extremely concerned. Indeed, not all the facts are in. Real estate agents estimate that property value will likely drop between twenty to thirty thousand dollars due to frequent and unacceptable noise levels, the unsightly protrusion ofa 6 foot sound wall, as well as the subse- quent obstruction of the existing grand view of indigenous trees. As for myself, I only learned most of its adverse effects by personally attending the hearing, going through the blue prints in the city planning department and visiting the site. During the August 1st hearing, members of the Palo Alto Tennis Club spoke up about the impor- tance of tennis in their lives. OUR PEACE OF MIND IS AT STAKE HERE! Would these same individuals vote to pass this plan if tennis courts were to be located no more than 20 feet from their homes? In view of the clear violation of noise levels as stipulated in the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Ref. (b) plus the lack of clear and satisfactory guarantee that the City Ordinance can be complied with fully, the Planning Commission must reject the proposal. The installation of a noisy sport with its attending crowd, audience and noise during tournaments has no place in the midst of a residential district. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend, in its place, alterna- tive activities, such as calisthenics, Taiji, quiet meditation etc. suitable and appropriate for an established and quiet residential neighborhood such as ours. Page 2 Sincerely, Wei Wang Loyal Palo Alton, Tax Payer and Registered Voter Page 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning Administrator Name of Appellant .~’4 ~/( Street Phone {’Yf~-)" 3;~ -~...~$~" Zip LOCATION OF PROPERTY: ~ssessor’s Parcel No. !.~-+ - ~ "_--- i.j.’{"Zone District Street Address ~ ~’o 7 /-q’~c~/e f/,’/~.~ Name of Prope~y Owner (if other than appellant)~ ~ ~.~ Prope~ Owner’s Address ~ d~ ~ !~l f~/~’~, ~ (d’ /~ Street ,./~/~ J./T~?~, -~c.. e City Zip The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated whereby the application of " /.~/~ ~1 ~- r ~ ~ ~" f~ e r ~, ~was (variance/~t) /’c’d ~) ~fora (original applicant) (a.~/denied) , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date ~" / ~ 7>/~’~ Signature of AppellantS ~-,~-----~¢~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1.Plans 2.Labels 3.Appeal Application Forms 4.Letter 5.Fee Denied By: By: By: ~i By: ~ Department of #~’m"Cornmunm, =,.’. ,;rig and,v ~Vlror~t~ehi 12/89 August 23~ |996 To the Planning Commission and City Council of Pale Alto 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 IMiddlefield Road, Application No. 96-UP-I We are writing this specifically in regard to Ellsworth Place, although we may occasionally refer to other neighbors of this site. This letter consists of two parts, the first written by Natalie Fisher and the second by John K. Abraham, both of whom are appealing the use permit approval. Part I The City is essentially giving away a valuable properly, worth perhaps several million dollars on the open market, to a special interest group for private use at a loss to the community in general and to the residents of Midtown in particular. This action would also be at great detriment to the neighbors of this site, in terms of adverse impacts on our health and general welfare and to the property values of our homes. The neighbors will gain no benefit from the proposed new tennis club and expect their homes to become uninhabitable if the use permit is not denied or severely modified. The City Council limited the requests for proposal (RFPs) for this site to organized, moneyed parties by requiring that no proposal may cost the City any expenditure. Yet, the City is giving away a large sum of money in leasing this site for 15 years at a one time payment of $100. Were the City Council to allow RFPs which might require some City expenditure or sell the land, this site might be used to the benefit of the Midtown residents and other Pale Alto fesidents, and the Pale Alto Tennis Club might find a more Suitable site to hold league play and tournaments and be able to have lights for night time playing. A tennis facility at a park, such as Greer or Cubberly, might be paid for with the proceeds if the site were sold. There might also be money left over to repair tennis courts at the schools. We do not understand why the City is willing to make expenditures for other public uses, but specifically excluded this property, to the point of making it a requirement of the RFPs that they not require an__o_y public expenditure. This decision left the Midtown residents out of the picture, on financial grounds, with no opportunity to be involved in discussion of possible uses of this property: We want the City Council to deny the conditional use permit in its entirety and start the process over~ with opportunities for people who live in the neighborhood to participate with Council’s help. If the City Council were to facilitate discussions between the interested parties on this project, as it has for the Midtown Revitalization Project, we might be able to find a use for this site which would be more appropriate for this location and of benefit to the general public. Ideas which come to mind are a public garden to replace that in the Midtown Shopping Center (which might be removed for the Center revitalization), an indoor table tennis facility with a couple of outdoor or indoor tennis courts for neighborhood play, a small park, or other low intensity recreation useJ If the proposal goes through as currently planned, there will probably be years of trouble ahead for all concerned. This may be a good case for direct Council intervention. Given time and help from the City, perhaps the money could even be raised by citizens for an alternate use of this site. Please do not let this valuable ~community resource be used for a private tennis association by default. I have lived in this house on Ellsworth Place for over 20 years and was residing here during the time the Chuck Thompson Club was in existence. I was able to live here because I worked and was gone most of the day. However, on weekends, holidays or other times I was at home, I was not able to sleep beyond the time tennis players started playing in the courts behind my house, as my bedroom (like those of my neighbors on the creek side) is on the back of the house. Also, during the day and evenings, on weekends or holidays, we found it difficult to be in our yards because of the considerable noise as well as the danger posed by tennis balls flying over the fence, occasionally with sufficient force to hit a house yards~back from the fence. The noise of the balls being hit is loud and sharp, sounding much like firecrackers going off in my backyard. I still have a problem even now, this summer, with people who start playing at 8 am~ This is a noise one cannot sleep through. However, under current conditions we can wait until the players finish and then fall back asleep, as use of these courts is very light and not continuous. The voice noises, people yelling to each other over the net, laughing, whooping, etc., although not covered under the Palo Alto noise ordinance and therefore not discussed in the sound study, are as much a problem for us as the "mechanical" noises~ The proposed new uses will increase both voice and mechanical noises to an intolerable level° 2 Now that we have earned our retirement, we ask to be allowed to sleep beyond 8 am and to be able to enjoy our home during the day. It is not an option for me to move elsewhere. My house is almost paid for now and I could not afford to purchase another or pay rent at today’s prices. This is probably the case for most of my neighbors. Many of the residents on Ellsworth are young people and some are retired older people with fixed incomes. Many are renters. This is not a tony neighborhood and probably one of the last remaining relatively inexpensive places to live left in Palo Alto. The proposed new uses of this site are far in excess of those of the Chuck Thompson Club and will magnify past noise problems many times over. The Winter Lodgels schedule of key entry play and group lessons for children is as follows: Winter 8 am - dark; Summer Schedule 8-I0 am keg entry play, IO-noon group lessons 4 days/week, noon-2 pm key entry play, 2-4 pm group lessons 4 days/week, 4-9 pm key entry, and key entry all day Friday from 8 am until dark, Saturday 8 am until dark, Sunday 9 am until dark. From occasional and sporadic use the neighbors will be faced with unrelenting constant noise from 8 am (9 am on Sundays.i till dark every day of the week all year round. There is no respite. In addition, the Palo Alto Tennis Club’s schedule, as stated by their spokesperson at the August I hearing before the Zoning Administrator, is as follows: league play (competitive playing of teams) will utilize all 5 courts simultaneously with "typically 16 people" playing ~, a time, to take place 6-8 pm four days per week, from April through July and starting again in the fall from October through February or March, during weekday or Saturday afternoons; plus tournaments once per month for an entire weekend from 8 am until 3 or 4 pro, for 5 mon~ths. These events will be out in the open with spectators adding their voice noise to the mix, and perhaps loudspeakers as well. Just how much noise can be generated by this site before everyone is looking for new homes and unable to sell their current ones? Further, as though the tennis uses stated above do not sufficiently make use of this site, Phase II adds a fifth court, a playground, restrooms and a covered patio/park area, all for the private use of keyholders and members of the Palo Alto Tennis Club and guests, not for the public. These additional facilities encourage people to make a day of it and this very small site ~turns into a total (and private, as in country c~ub) recreation center. This intense usage is completely 3 inappropriate for this small space surrounded c|osely on three sides by residents. There is no land buffer between the recreation and the neighbors as there would be at a larger site, such as a park. Our point is that this use is far in excess of the former Chuck Thompson Club and is not in any way "low intensity:" The City Council directed during the hearings for the option to lease that the site be used for low intensity and that the Winter Lodge confer with the neighbors. The applicant has complied with neither mandate. The neighbors have not been contacted. The Winter Lodge has not cooperated with the neighbors and has, according to condominium residents, done as little as possible to meet past conditional use requirements. Instead of proposing low intensity use of this site, the applicant is attempting to maximize use of this site as far as the City will allow. We are grateful to the City that the lights will be removed. The removal of the lights is a vast improvement. But it is not itself sufficient to make life in our homes bearable. The acoustical study (which was conducted for the Winter Lodge as client and not the City) is very limited. The average decibel level of the mechanical noise does not represent the reality of what we in fact experience, which is not an average but the peaks. With PATC players, we expect the serves and returns to be even more noisy than other players, as these people will be engaged in.competitive play and will be hitting harder. Also, the voice noise is not considered in the sound report because the City has no noise ordinance which addresses this problem. Other cities evidently do, and perhaps the City Council should consider enacting one. If the proposed tennis use is approved, by the City Council, residents on Ellsworth Place require mitigation. Four of the courts are within just 40 feet from our back fences, two of them behind my house. Residents’ houses are only a few feet further back from the property line. Players on these four courts are as clearly heard as though they were indeed in our back yards, outside our bedroom windows° Added the heavy hitting and the voices of many people if Phase It is implemented, even our living rooms may not be sufficiently far removed. We may have to keep our windows and doors closed during the hot days of summer and that might not suffice~ Therefore, although no one seems to know at present whether a sound barrier would be a sufficient mitigation of the noise, we require one along Matadero CreeI~ for however much relief it will afford. A line of trees along the creel{ will certainly provide no mitigation of the noise. !l~nd it would ~ai<e years for those trees to mature enough to provide even a visual screen.) A sound wall, if solid, air-tight and properly maintained, might help. The barrier must be an acoustically effective sound wall~ at least 8 feet high. Although wood is less expensive~ wood warps over time and the sound wall needs to be made of a material~ such as masonry, which would remain solid and air-tight over time and weather (the wall between the nero residences and St. Mark’s Church on Colorado is an example.l. Other mitigations we want are later starting hours, no earlier than 9 am on weekdays and I0 am on weekends and holidays; and the prohibition of league playand tournaments iincluding prohibition of loudspeakers). We fail to understand why this small site should be preferred for such activities over Cubberly or Mitchell Park. I request that the use of practice walls and mechanical devices such as ball throwing machines be banned. The Saratoga Planning Commission recommended removal of the Brookside swim/tennis club practice walls, because a sound study found that their use created sufficient additional noise as to cause the Saratoga noise ordinance to be exceeded. Mechanical devices used in teaching tennis might also greatly increase the noise levels unless blocked by special equipment. As further mitigation, I would like the tennis courts along the creek to be moved further back from the Western boundary line to leave a minimum of ten feet with landscaping installed within that space, in accordance with the Zoning Code Section 18.32.070 Special requirements in the PF public facilities district, subsection (a.l (3) (page 1859 of the Municipal Code.) If an argument is made that the tennis site is exempted from this requirement, I would point out that new construction is being proposed at this site: the reorientation of two of the courts, the addition of the fifth court, plus the other facilities proposed to be built in Phase II. These I changes are not just renovations or maintenance but substantial additions. I request that the City delay the conditional use permit until a study has been made of the potential effects of the ten foot landscape screen and sound wall on the noise levels experienced by residents along the Creek. Regarding sound barriers, a reason given for why the applicant did not propose a sound barrier for Ellsworth Place was given by the Winter Lodge’s architect at the June 20th hearing before the Zoning Administrator. She indicated that "The angles may be such that a barrier may not help." We were also told at this hearing ~hat "this issue could be addressed in the design review phases." Some of us have concerns that the proposed sound barriers for the northern and 5 eastern boundaries may reflect additional noise to the western boundary, Ellsworth Place. There is also concern over whether the concrete channel of the creek may have an echo effect which might exacerbate the noise for us. No studies have been offered on these questions and potential problems. It looks like Ellsworth residents will be the guinea pigs, but it will be an unscientific study. The best sound barriers are land buffers and that is why a large park would be a better site for the proposed tennis facility. At the August I hearing, two suggestions were made by neighbors to handle the potential problem of keyholders playing during unauthorized times, such as before 8 am~ One suggestion was that a key lock box, such as realtors use, be placed on the gate at dusk and that someone from Winter Lodge come at 8 am to remove the lock box to permit entry by keyholders. The other idea was to have a responsible person to call during nonbusiness hours who would come down and find out who was violating the tennis facility rules. The representatives of the Winter Lodge soundly rejected both ideas and said that we could call the police if there is a problem. There is a condition in the use permit decision that a phone number be made available. However, this is an empty condition if one reaches an answering machine. If someone from the tennis facility does not come immediately in order to identify the violators, they cannot enforce their own rules. From my experiences with the Chuck Thompson Club, I can assure you that people will violate rules to play when they want to if they have entry. Even after I convinced the Club personnel to put timers on their lights, there were people who turned them back on and played, sometimes until I or 2 am. The Winter Lodge’s contention at the hearings that "these (future keyholders) are adults and will behave responsibly" is no assurance, no more than are the proposed use permit conditions that supposedly are to protect us~ Words on paper don’t reflect what actually happens. Here is another example of what inventive people will do to play tennis during unauthorized times. There are no lights turned on in the courts at present. However, when lights were placed close to the courts for the purpose of lighting the portable toilets for a Winter Lodge activity this summer, there were people playing tennis after dark because these lights did provide sufficient illumination on the court to permit play. Will this be prevented under the new uses? Will personnel at the tennis facility or Winter Lodge be on hand at aH times to enforce the rules? The answer we received at the hearings was "no" and the condition #5 of the use permit is not a guarantee. Past experience with the Winter Lodge has left us and the condo residents very dissatisfied with their responses to noise problems, i~;e .~eed a mechanism we can count on if noise levels become intolerable or rules are violated, llle need more good will and better cooperation from the Winter Lodge than has so far been the case. The statement in the zoning decision, that surrounding properties will be minimally impacted by the proposed u}es, are ludicrous to us who live here. At the August I zoning hearing we heard comments that we are exaggerating the noise impact of tennis playing. Statements such as these could only be made by those who don~t live next to the site and haven’t had our experiences. They, for sure, would not be willing to patiently suffer the same impacts on themselves that would be imposed upon us if this project goes through in its present form. Those who would benefit are not the same people as those who would pay~ the price. Attachments: 2 Natalie Fisher 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, CA 94306 I. Page from report on Brookside Club, Saratoga, obtained from Saratoga City Hall. 2. Copy of Palo Alto Zoning regulation of public facilities Part |I of this letter of appeal follows the two attachments listed above. 7 January, 1960 UP-14 - Modification to Use Permit to Allow~ ~ Constructioh of a Clubhouse and to Modify Hours of Operation The City permitted the construction of a clubhouse but reduced the hours of operation and the size of the membership. June, 1974 UP-207 - Modification to Allow the Construction of Two Additional Tennis Courts ~ The City allowed the club to expand its tennis facilities after the club obtained an adjacent u~developed parcel. All other conditions remained in effect as established in the previous modification. February, 1985 UP-574 - Modification to the Hours of Operation to Allow Adult Swimminq from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. weekdays Although the club requested modification to allow 4 Saturday swim meets to begin at 9:00 aom. rather than at i0:00 a.m., the Plan- ning Commission denied this request and modified only the adult swimming hours. January, 1990 UP-574.1 - Modification to the Qperatinq Hours to Allow Three Saturday Swim Meets to Beqin a_~t 9:00 a.m. After extensive review and public input, the Planning Commission modified the use permit conditions to allow three (3) Saturday swim meets to begin at 9:00 a.m. By taking this action, the Planning Commission established conditions requiring the club to repair the creekside wood fence, plant additional landscaping, eliminate the use o~_~_~@~s_~ebound wall and basketball stand- %rd, a~--9~0ve debris accumulated along the creek bank. June, 1990 UP-574.2 - Modification to the Use Permit elimin- atin~ prohibition of alcohol. The Club was found to be in compliance with all other conditions of previous Use Permits granted ~_y the City. In amending the Use Permit to allow the earlier starting time for the summer swim meets,[the Planning Commission requested the Club to conduct a sound study to quantify noise levels and identify noise sources. The study was conducted on behalf of the Club by an acoustical engineer~ In general the Club was found to be in compliance with the City Noise Ordinance with certain exceptions. Swim meets, weekend activities and~the tennis practice wall/bas- ketball standards were found to exceed the noise standard. In response to these findings, the Planninq Commission re.~qlL~ repair of the perimeter fence to form barrier between the Club and residents across the creek, removal of the basketball stand- ~o ard, and elimination of use of the tennis practice wall~ Addi- tionally, t~~nni~~slo~uiged ~~dscaping visually screen the Club from the residents across the creek-- 2 18.32.050 PALO ALTO .MUNICIPAL CODE (18) Eating and drinking services in conjunction with a permitted use; (c) Public or private colleges and universities and facilities appurtenant thereto; (d) Hospitals. (Ord. 4139 §1, 1993: Ord. 3798 §§I, 2 1988: Ord. 3783 §§2, 3, 1987: Oral. 3632 §§3, 4, 1985: Ord. 3413 §2, 1983: Ord. 3340 §7, 1982: Ord. 3130 §18, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.32.050 Site development regula- tions. The following site development regulations shall apply in the PF punic facilities district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: (a) Site area. No requirement is established. (b) Site width. No requirement is established. (c) Site depth. No requirement is established. (d) Yards. The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF punic facilities district shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 6.1 meters (twenty fee0, and that no interior yard shall be less than 3.0 meters (ten feet). (e) Floor area ratio. The maximum floor area allowed by the most restrictive adjacent zoning district. (g) Height. The maximum height shall be 15.2 meters (fifty feet). 0a) Accessory facilities and uses. Regulations governing accessory facilities and uses, and governing the application of site development regulations in specific instances are established by Chapter 18.88. (i) Special setbacks. Where applicable, setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code shall be followed for the purpose of determining legal setback requirements. (Ord. 4016 §23, 1991: Ord. 3891 §1, 1989: Ord. 3465 §10, 1983: Oral. 3345 §§16, 17, 1982: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.32.060 Parking and lo~ding. (a) Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapter 18.83. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply with the regulations and design standards established by Chapter 18.83. (b) Location of parking and loading spaces. No required parking or loading space shall be located in the first 3.0 meters (ten feet) adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)ratio shall be 1.0 m 1.0; provided that for parking ~~’ yfacilities the maximum floor area ratio shall be.~peeial requirements. equal to the floor area ratio established by the --Th"~Nllowing special requirements shall apply most restrictive adjacent zoning district; and provided, further, that the maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be .25 to 1. For the purposes of this section, the "Stanford Hoover Pavilion" site is defined as that property designated as Assessor’s Parcel numbers 142-04-011 and 012. (f) Site coverage. The maximum site coverage shall be thirty percent of the site area, provided that for parking facilities the maximum site coverage shall be equal to the site coverage in the PF_..F_~ublic facilities district: (a) Sites abutting or having any portion located within 45.7 meters (one hundred fifty feet) of any residential district, or any residential PC district, shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements: (1). The maximum height within 45.7 meters (one hundred fifty fee0 of any RE, R-l, R- 2, RM, or applicable PC district shall be 10.7 meters (thirty-five feet); provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any 1858 Rev. Ord. Supp. 6/93 ZONING 18.37.010 of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be 15.2 meters "~ (fifty feet) (2) On any portion of a site in the PF district which abuts a site in any residential or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of 3.0 meters (ten feet) shall be required, and a solid wall or fence of between 1.5 and 2.4 meters (five and eight feet) in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and/ maintained as a landscaped screen. -.--~) (3) On any portion of a site in the PF district which is opposite from a site in any residential or applicable PC district and separated therefrom by a street, alley, cre_.~._~, drainage facility, or other open area, a minimum yard of 3.0 mete.____._____~ ~sh_.al_l__b_ge required. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for L..~ccess to the site. (b) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 3.0 meters (ten feet) at the applicable side or mar site lines and increasing at a slope of one meter for each two meters of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PF district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PF district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. (c) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building in compliance with the following table: Gross Floor Area Number of Use of New Con-Showers struction Required All government 0 - 9,999 or special dis- square feet No requirement trier facilities 10,000-19,999 designed for square feet 1 employee occu-20,000~9,999 pancy, college square feet 2 and univer- 50,000 square sitics, private feet and up 4 educational facilities, busi- ness and trade schools and sim- ilar uses. (On5. 3465 §§28, 37, 41, 1983: Ord. 3130 §§5, 18, 1979: Ord. 3048 (Part),.1978) 18.32.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The .design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectura! review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 16.48.070. (Ord. 4069 §4, 1992) CHAPTER 18.37 OR OFFICE RESEARCH DISTRICT REGULATIONS 18.37.010 Specific purposes. The OR office research district is intended to create and maintain areas for conduct of office, research, and educational activities not requiring sales or display areas generally associated with retail use in developments characterized by low building intensity, large site size, and landscaped grounds. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 1859 Rev. Ord. Supp. 3/92 , ,:: ,. II Lettermpp~o~ ~1~.a:=,Ul ~o A and ~’._. vo:el~; in Palo Alto onu, which were ai~proved bu t.he ~ -~ November 5, 1985, contain the word "tennis" in only one place, namely the I:~hrase "on which the Winter Lodge Ice Skating Facility and Chuck U..~b are located, in Measure A. Use of tileThompson Swim and Tennis -i,. " word "Tennis" is clearly a part of an identifying title and does not intend or suggest any commitment whatsoever t,o use the non Winter Lodge portion for any particular purpose, not tennis, not swimming or even recreational use. The measure does specify that Winter Lodge shall continue to be used for. community ice skating under certain conditions, but says nothing about the other parcels. Commentary by various proponents at the time may indicate that they thought the measure implied future recreational usage for the site, but a voter carefully reading the measure in the voting booth would have no reason to assume this from the printed ballot measure. In our view, the assertion that the ballot measure mandates tennis at the former Chuck Thomi:~son Swim and Tennis Club is false and based on an imagined contract, in no way is the City of PaloAlto required to use this land for tennis use. As part of the. usual r-eview of projects such ,~..,~- the CSI Tennis Proposal an environmental impact assessment was carried out. The chief I~roblem noted in the ~oult:ng report was the n ...." ~p~oolbilib.~ of increased noise I~.:,’~.I~, _ _. A ouund~’n consultant.. . was hired by CSI, namely Edward L. PacI:. ASsociates, Inc. and as a result of tI~eir acoustical an~ly.:,~.:,, it was recommended that a six-foot high sound proof wall be constructed along the entire length of tI~e north property line. In this appeal we do not ~-Iispute the need for a wall along the north property line. We d_.~o dispute the part of the sound analysis wl~ich states "The maximum and average noise levels at the east and. west property lines would comply with the ordinance limits." With regard to our property line, the West Property Line: ._ ~m~:.. noi ....As I pointed out atm The analysis completely i.qnores " -~. o~. the.hearing August Io 1996 and in my letter of July 22, 1996 voice noise is often the worst of the problem. Players frequently shout to each other over tI~e 78 foot long courts, bystanders make comments, instructoEs yell instructions ball machines may be in use., a public address system blaring, and perhaps noisiest of all, spectators cheering on their favorites from bleachers. Under the same hypothetical conditions as Mr. PacI<’s tennis ~,ata, I ha.~ provided my own eo.~mates of tl~e voice level noise from the same courts assuming a dBA level just in excess of ball hit noise, namely 60 dBA. (My justification and numerical results appear together with Mr. Pack’s in Table 8.5 and pages 7-9 of my accompanying "Objections to the Winterlodge Acoustical Report"). While voice noise is not covered under I the Palo Alto Noise Ordinonce and the zoning administrator wos not anxlous to deal with this difficult topic, it is a large part of the real problem. It is quite possible to be driven to distraction by legal noise. Unless this appeal is acted upon there will be no protection from long term voice noise problems at the proposed Tennis facility. Just screening for Municipal Code violations is not enough. m Mr. Pack’s sound analysis is use-invariant. By that I mean that the len~tI~ of time the facilitl~ is u~,~d, whether 15 minutes or 24 hour~ g~ves ~,,~tly the same numbers. At present, using traffic estimales from the City of Palo Alto Transportation Department* the current usage level ..Ite is no more than 20% of the proposed usage.at tl~e proposed Tennis ~ The cou’-ts will be used for doubles ~ournaments, league play, instruction and special events from early in the morning to as late as dusk will permit. The problems residents have dealing with tl~is large increase in ,~o~e duration will become acule as the scl~edule expands While the ~_mnN~ administrator was made aware of the use-i’m~a~"~anc~’ - and large increa.se in expected noise at the August Ist hearing, no mitigation at all was included for the Western residents. m The sound analysis shows that tI~e maximum noise level for ball hit noise slightly exceeds the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Limit. for the Western residents, 56.06 dBA (Table titled "Tennis Playing Noise Levels Winterlodge of Palo Alto"). WitI~ rounding off, the limit is said to be exa~llu at the l_.,,el of the Noise Ordinance, namel~ ~, dBA ~ - --- ~.~". __ ,p~g~ 3, 2nd to last bullet). By Mr. Pack’s own estimate in a phone conversation with I~im June :’I .IOq~ the -"....... , ~,,~stence of a sound wall at the North Prop~, ty Line would increase the dBA reaching the West Property Line by up to I or 2 d~. Despite his assurances at the August I hearing tI~at reflection is tBken care of in otl~er ways, there is nothing showing this in his report. All his calculatinns are based on free field ~s~,umpt,ons, that is, with no trees,, fences, shrubber~.~. ~.~islinl~_, . ._ walls or an~. other obiects, intervening. THe effect of this i~ to ~i~e the Nols~ Limit Dy The st~te~ level of ~ver~ge noise for ~rooksi~eiP~io ~ Section B of Hr. ~ck’~ report, is too low. The ~si~ ~o~rce of ~il the data in th~ analysis is another report by Edward L. Par_.-i-’." As.~ociate~ at the E rooi:si de Swim and Racquet Club in Saratoga. Californi a, dated September 7, 1989 ~{copy included with this appeal). Here there are two sets of measurements taken on two da~s; with the Brookside ambienl levels at 48 dBA. This ambient level was assumed as the average tennis level forPalo Alto ~;,.lud~g game noise. Ti~ere were no studies nf real world tennis play at Palo Alto. The average ambient LEQ level at Palo Alto, as measuredby Mr. Pack during the proposed hours of operation turns out to be 49.3 dBA .. .~;t~o~ .....). The result of(Cf pages 9 and I0 of my enclosed "Some Obj-" " -~ " these " .....--.- . ._~n~,.~;ura,.~. is fha~ al~ the conclusions based on his average noise figures are too low. Ouite aside from problems of bias. the use of an avera,~e is completely inappropriate for this problem. If someone sI~ould tap me periodically with a hammer, he might argue that the pain is only mild dis;~unmfort on the average and therefore I don’t have a problem. Bu. tI~e average is nnt_ what is deli"e~-,-~J,..,=, to residents bordering the tennis courts. We get bali hits, sI~oe squeaks and voice noise. There is no average noise available to the neighbors in tI~e real world. If there were, we wouldn’t have a proLlem As a statistical descriptor it is m,;,l~dlng and overly reassuring (Cf. page., 9 and 10 of my enclosed "Some ubject~ons j. This is a summary of what I believe to be the most relevant errors and omissions of the sound analysis, i still insist on including all tile arguments I have in my enclosed report "Some Objections to the Winterlodge Acoustical Report Dated April 8, 1996, Project No. 28-0!6, Edward L. Pack Associates, inc." i have provided source references in that report. The sound analysis in my opinion is a "friendly" report for a client. CSI, rather than a scientific one. There are unacceptable simplifications as to what one can assume such as special case data at Saratoga over real data at Palo Alto, excluding voice noise and fudging on the ambient data, reflections and the PaloAlto Noise limit. A careful study of tennis noise at this site would take time and considerable care. Nevertheless. dozens of residents~lives are impacted significantly by this proposed facility and they deserve the benefit of a fair and unbiased investigation. We feel that if the City nevertheless insists on going ahead with the proposal then the residents on Ellsworth Place are at least entitl.ed to an acoustically effective sound wall, 8 feet in height, at the west boundary to lessen this damage. At present there is nothing proposed for us but a row of trees near the courts for aesthetic purposes. It is likely there will be numerous valid complaints lodged against CSI, as with the Shoreline concerts, and no way for people to cope. For this reason we opposed the conditional use permit in its current form and ask that you uphold this appeal. ~With regard to Mr. Car! Stoff~l’s M~morandum to th~ Planning Di’~’ison of the Revised Traffic Generation Information for 3009 Middlefield Road ~Tennis Courts) dated July 22, 1996: I wish to point out, using Mr. Stoffel’s estimates, that with the new proposed plan of five courts, there would be a total of 165 trips on weekdays (140 new), 190 trips on Sundays (160 new), with Saturdays falling somewhere between the two. The days with special bleacher events would raise all these numbers. Mr. Stoffel estimates that courts are currently being dsed at 20% of their capacity du~. to their poor condition and under the new usage would increase to 100%. Hence by his estimates there would be about a 5-foldincrease in usage at the site. I would respectfully estimate the current usage level to be 10%, which would imply about a ten-fold increase in usage, a much greater problem from the noise point of view. While the traffic problems may not be serious, the large number of one way auto trips raises the question whether the City Council requirement of low intensity use at the site are being honored, particularly for phase I I which includes use of i-,leachers. ~~ ~ ~ Enclosures With This Appeal Letter i) Copy of Measures A and B as they appeared on the November 5 1985 Official Ballot. 2) Copy of Mr. Pack’s report "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club Saratoga", dated September 7, 1989. .,., Copy of Memorandum to Lisa Grote/Planning Division from Carl Stoffel/Transportation Divison entitled Revised Traffic Generation Information for 3009 Middlefield road (Tennis Courts~ dated July 22, 1996. 4) Some Objections to the Winterlodge Acoustical Report Dated April 8. 1996, Project No. 28-016. Edward L. Pack Associates. Inc." by John K. Abraham. 4 "L ¯Nov~-,C=AL BALLOT., . ~slidated Electiorm .., ".../.-’,._~ , ..’. ~iFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ¯ UNICIPAL ELECTION "" ’,O ALTO County of Santa C~sra OFFICIAL BALLOT1 1 MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS - CITY OF PALO ALTO MEASURES ~ 5, 1985 A Shall an ordinanc~ be enacted which author[z~ t~e City Cou;~il to artem~ to secure and to take all reasonable, nece~s.ary, and appropriate action per-mitted by law to negotiate the exchange of a portion of the Palo Alto Mu-nicipal Golf Cc~urse at the northeast corner of Geng and Embarcadero Roads ~to exc~:d 3.74 acres for certain privately-owned parceEs located at addresses com-monly known a~ 3005 and 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California (com.isdngof Asst~_sor’s Parcel numbers 127-53-11, 127-53-12, IZ7-53-13, and 127-53-1.5), o~which the Winter Lodge lce Skating Facility and Chuck Thompson S,~im and TennisClub are located, provided: (1) that a majority of electors vote in favor of MeasureB on this ballot authorSzing discontinuance of the park ~ ~" d~ Geng Roadjparcel: (2) the Winter t,o<ige Facitiry..shall continue to be used for ~’nrnunhy ic~~" skating so long as no City ..~b~,,,.y is rcquir.ed for i~. o0~dn.ua~= ~ than rbe ~of the. Middlefield Road sit .~r_ apptoprmtc ,~,s~ m securr~ and make. "available an alternate site and facilit,wd(3) any exchange agreement shall reC.l-,rethat the normal City development procEs,.~s shall be follou, ed with respect to privatedevelopment of the G~eng Road pam,.el, including, but not limited to. Comprehemsive Plan amendment, zoning, s~bdivision reg-lations, site and desi~ review, andenvironmental review under the California Environmental O~ality Act: (4) in anyexchan~,e agre~=d to by City, no more than that portion of the 3.74 acre Geng Roadparcel ~vhich is equivalent in value to the Middlefield Road site shall be included;(5) an actual exchange Ls finally completed no laterthan May I. 1987; (6) if the terms of an exchange FOR THE MEASURE are not agreed upon, the City of Palo Alto shallnot be le=ally obh~ated to acquire the Middlef’mldRoad sit~ for an’y consideration other than an AGAINS’rTHE ME.ASUKE exchange? Shall the northeasterly ~.74 acres of the Municil:~rGolf Course at the corner of Geng and Embarcadero Roads be discontinued for park use in order toallow it to be possibly developed for office use and be exchanged for 3.74acres of real property k:~cated on Middlefield Road containing ic~ skating andrecreational facilities provided (1) the discontinuance will not be effective unless amajority of the electorate also votes in favor of Measure A o~ this ballot whichauthorizes the City Council to attempt to negotiate exchange of the Geng Road parcel for the Middlefietd Road site: (2)_no more tha rt" t . .7 . ~3) an~"~x hc Tn~ agreement shall require that the norm~ C~ty deve[orn’ne~lLp"~Oces.xes shall be followed with respect to pris’ate development of the Geng Roadparcel, including, but not limited to. Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning.subdivision regulations, site and design review, and environmental review under theCalifornia Environmental Ouality Act: (4) City I ........ shall reserve easements for the existing bicyclepath and sanitary sewer; and (5) if exchange is not [_ finally completed on or before May 1, 1987. the |entire 3.74 acres shall ix: rededicatdd to park use |forthwith?L Some Objections to the Winterlodge Acoustical Report Dated April 8, 1996, Project No. 28-016, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. by John K. Abraham M.A. Physics, Phd. Mathematica! Statistics 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, Cali fornia Summary ¯-.~ ........~ r.~ .........~ ~ r, .....i.~.~,, ~... :_-, ~_:Uu."_-;.’_~L.~ AnaILISIS present anti I arn happ!_i tt~at theu are finallLl .qetlin.q a numeMcal ct~aracter in Mr. Pacl.’.:’s re-~ort. He does F~oint out on page I, 3rd sentence "The _ _ _ t~l~nl¢, plaMinQ noise levels were ~nresults nf the anal!Isls indicate the. ~. ~" . _. -:~nlation, _ of the Noise Ordinance standards in, tI~e past durinq..:,~r"n-",’]~Lg~ of the... ball. TI~e planned proier:l --. "’"mac,!mum single-event nni:~e levels wlll be the sameas theprew.ous levels. The average noise levels will be3 dB higher titan before, but will remain within tI~e limits of the Noise Ordinance." At r:nurls ~’ = and 4 alnnq Matadero Creek, ball hit noise delivered to the ~’-- ~ _ _ .~:~ten~ nelqhbor~: sli~htl~ exceeds the city noise limit. .l~ut that an averaqeTalk of a statistical "average" noise belies the -~ sound level is not wl~at the tennis courts de! ’- -~,~. The real sounds are ball hits,. ~~,~.~..~I~- ....-’~- and ,,u’-~ve noise. The hypothesized average noise ~or F’alo A!lo. happens to be ~- than tl~e, ~’-’- -.... ~a,,~,ag~ of Mr. Pack’s own ambient noise measurements for the proposed hours of ~,.~nnl~-~, court operation in Palo , _BruuI,~,l ~_. data.Alto one of th~ problems in using his imported --’"~ The Western neighbors, to(aliy un~rotected, wil! have noise damage done by much greater levels of tennis activity plus a Northern soun~ wall that can be ex~ected to add further decibele: by To get some idea of dB voice levels accompanying tennis court usage I ,,,~,,=~,-~"~ estimated [Cf. reference ~4~. , anti~ my discussion on page 8] a range of voice noise between 60 and 70 dB at 40 feet the distance Mr. Pack uses for his Brookside data to construct tl~e Table "’TENNIS PLAYING NOISE Lcx~E=z... The insertion of n~y xmi,~ noise data into this Table, calculating in the same way as Mr. Pack has done for BALL and SHOE noise, results in estimated total noise l~,~l~ ran~in~ from 66 to 76 dBA for Northern neigI~bors for courts 4 and 5. The voice noise for tI~e Western neighbors from courI~: ’:’ = and 4 will range from 58 to 68 dB. At IO0 feet from court 5, the Eastern boundary vocal noise will be between 52 to 62 dBA. With bleachers additional crowd noise and Public address system use (as at the Ice Rink), these residences wil! receive, especially on the upper floors, noise levels exceeding tl~e Palo Alto noise limits. The Western n~i~hbors_ ~ , wI~o have n~ver_ had any protection offered,. will now get greatly increased noise from the courts 50 feet from their property lines. The ambient noise level dat~ in Appendix C was almost s.~ely collected while at least some tennis was being played :m March 2nd and 3rd, ,,~n~ the basir: assumptions. Rather than incur additional expense~ I-IU~III~ . . . for a new ambient study I recommend that EdWard L. Pack Associates Inc be askedto - ~’- "d~t~ m~ne whether the Western neighbors can be protected. If the answer to this basic question is no then because of the projected I greotly increosed number of daily noise violations of the Polo Alto I~oise Ordinance, I respectfully ask that the conditional use permit be denied Proposed List of Errors--Winterlodg~. Report of April 8, 1996 page 2, middle of first paragraph: Should read "L90, i.e., the sound level exceed 90% (54 minut~.s out of 60)" page 4, fourth dot: Should read "under the proposed tennis court scenario will be 51 dBA. This noise level will be 5 dB below the Noise Ordinance limit." Table titled "TENNIS PLAYING NOISE LEVELS WINTERLODGE OF PALO ALTO": If] The table subcomponents labeled "North House Setback" Old and New, "West House Setback" Old and New--all have the words "SHOE" and "BALL" Interchanged. The headings should be in the same order as in the remainder of the table. [2] The numerical value in "West House Setback", Old, under TOTAL, column titled SHOE (which by the correction above should be labeled "BALL") should be 52.00 and not 51.00. Mr. Pack intends to list the maximum values in the column above. The same mistake occurs in "West House Setback", New, under TOTAL, column titled SHOE (which by the correction above should be labeled "BALL") should be 52.00 and not 51.00. Figure I: The numbering of the courts referred to in the report has been omitted. From the table "TENNIS PLAYING...." it is clear that they should be numbered in a clockwise direction starting with the court nearest the proposed keyed gate. Court No. 5 will be the new court next to the north property line. First Table in Appendix C: Title should read "....Date 3/I-3/1996..." Table entitled "ORDINANCE WORKSHEET" [I] For some reason Mr. Pack has chosen to add only 6 dB to L90 instead of 15 dB under the ordinance. All entries in the column "Noise Limit" are too low by 9 dBA. [2] The dates listed in the heading should read 3/2-3/1996. 3 Some Obiections to the ~,’~n.erlodge Acnustical Report Dated April 8 I~4~6 Proleci. No. 28-016 Edward L. Pack A.=..=,o,~,,J,.~.,, Inc. by Jol]n K. Abraham This sound analysis pr-ovided by Edward L. Pack Associates inc. was I:Irepared for Winterlodge as client for- use m the process of obtaining a permit for their pr-oposerl tennis center-~,.,p,~,-,’ -~-.-"~.=,~on. There are three areas of interest in Mr. Pacl.-.:’:--~ report to near the propns£d Tennrs Courts at 3009 Middlefield Road: I) Acoustical m.ea::~urements meant to establish the aI:~propriate legal noise limits at the tennis courts. 2) Insertion of the Brool.-.:si,-le data to estimate [he maximum and average no;se levels uniter the previo~s and proposed tennis court scenar~,os at Middlefieid. 3) Recommendation to reduce the maximum noise level from [I~e service of ball:--; to acceptable levels by construction of a 6 ft. high ,-L~.OU._,t,,..,~lly ~.tfe~;t~,,~ barrier along the entire north proper-ty line. I Acoustical studies meant to establish the appropriate legal noise limits at the proposed tennis courts The data in Mr. Pack’s Appendices B & C refers to on site Noise [’leasurement Data extending from March I to March 3, 1996 at Winterlodge in Pa!o Alto. The purpose of the data in Appendix C is to establish the appropriate minimum ambient level L90 during the proposed hours of operation, namely 7 a.m to 9 p.m. As noted on his page B-I, the Palo Alto noise ordinance requires the local ambient to be measured with the noise issue silent. In an attempt to do this Edward L. Pack Associates began their meter(s) at 18:42:56 on March I, Friday, and they apparently ran continuously until sometime after 11:42:57 on March 3, 1996 at which time further readings were "rained out." Based on a conversation with Mr. Pack on June 21 there seems to have been a misunderstanding as to whether the courts were in use while his recordings were being made. As he told me then, "They don’t play tennis there anymore." I and many other neighbors can testify to the fact that the courts are and have been used daily by I.he public. I doubt if anyone knows now how many people played on the courts Saturday and Sunday March 2 & 3rd, 1996. There were only two sampling periods that counted, Saturday and Sunday between 7 a.m and 9 p.m. and one was largely voided. The effect is small since the minimal L90 can be no less than 40 dB by law. 4 However the fact remalns that testing was not done over ambient conditions as the law requires. The correct noise limit is no larger than 56 and may be 55dB. If testing is to be repeated, it should not be allowed to raise the Noise limit at Winterlodge above 56 by disregarding the recordings already done. II Application of the Brookside data in order to estimate maximum and average noise levels under both the previous and proposed tennis court scenarios at Midd,lefield Before getting to Mr. Pack’s numbers, it is necessary to describe exactly what he means by previous (old) and proposed (new) scenarios. The previous scenario, as borne out by his computations in Table 4.5, is defined to be all four courts in use simultaneously. It isa worst case scenario under the statusquo. The proposed scenario is defined to be all five courts in use simultaneously (four resurfaced and the proposed new 5th court), again the worst case scenario in the future. It is quite important to compare future use levels with the current real level of tennis court usage. That is, after al!, what we neighbors face in the way of an increase. In a conversation with Mr. Carl Stoffe! of the Transportation Department on July 15th, he reiterated his estimate that tile fifth court would add abouta.-~ new (one way) auto t.~-l pc," per weekday. Multiply by 5 for a tota! of about 165 trips per day, on average, for all the proposed courts, not peak usage such as for tournaments. From my own estimates, the current average number of one way trips per weekday for tennis players is no more than 15, so that neighbors are facing about a tenfold increase in tennis court usage just during the week. Weekend figures are even higher. While the maximum noise levels wouldincrease a few decibels the big increase would be in the _quantity of new noise, much of it in violation of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. I believe it is possible to briefly summarize the main results of Table 4.5, and the report, as follows (all entries being rounded by Mr. Pack to the nearest integer): Average Noise Levels at Winter Lodge North Property Line West Property Line Old dB levels 54 51 New dB levels 57 51" Maximum Noise Levels at Winter Lodge North Property Line West Property Line Old dB Levels 64 56 5 New dB Levels 64 56 The * refers to the fact that this is the correct reading taken from Table 4.5 and not from the fourth bullet on page 4, which reads 47 dB. In our conversation of June 21 Mr. Pack acknowledged that the page 4 bullet should read 51 dB: being 5dB below the Noise Ordinance limit. For the purposes of discussion I assume the Noise Ordinance limit to be 56 dB in all cases. The following assumptions Mr. Pack makes on page 3 determine all the subsequent estimates in Table 4.5: "There are two significant noise sources created during tennis playing: I) the ball~being hit [he does not say "serve" here but on page 6, 3rd paragrapll implies "primarily" serves] and 2) the squeak of tennis shoes sliding on the court surface. The Maximum measured noise level of a tennis ball being hit was 58 dBA at distance 40 feet, the maximum noise level of tennis shoes squeaking on the court surface was 52 dBA at 40 feet and the average noise level measured during 1 hour of tennis playing was 48 dBA (LEQ) at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the court." By "Brookside" report I refer to (c) "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim & Racquet Club, Saratoga", by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Project No. 21-093, September 7, 1989. With regard to maximum noise events, the Brookside report lists the results of measured Noise Levels at 5 locations on August 31, 1989 and July 8, 1989 at Brookside without.any mention of the amount of tennis playing during recording. The only place where 58 dB is mentioned in connection with tennis playing is in Table I of ref.(c) on page 3. for the one date of July 8, 1989 (Saturday) as the peak measured noise level on that date for 2 recording locations. We are not given the measurement capabilities of recording equipment, whether it was fast enough to fairly or realistically record short "impulse" type sounds. Mr. Pack argues that the time length of these ball hits or shoe squeaks is so short that to be additive they must occur at precisely the same time (page 4, 3rd to last paragraph, Winterlodge report). In fact checking the computations in Table 4.5, events such as ball hits or shoe squeaks are so fast that Mr. Pack ignores the probability that two or more such events will ever occur at the same time under either the old or new tennis scenarios. The entries marked TOTAL under BALL and SHOE are really the maximum sound levels, not the sum. Any two simultaneous events would add up to 3 dBA to the TOTAL depending on the distance from the observer. Realistically, ball hit sounds are not instantaneous. Any usable study of dBA recordings must account for different players, different equipment and conditions on several days, not just two at one clients’ swim and tennis club. There simply is not enough data given in reference (c) to 6 Justify whether 58 dB for a tennis hit, serve or otherwise, is really an appropriate peak noise level for general application. Shoe squeaks are treated similarly. The big problem, unfortunately, is voice noise, a subject Mr. Pack ignores in his Winterlodge analysis. Under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10.020 Definitions, paragraph (c) .... Noise level" means the maximum continuous 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 arranged to the setting appropriate to the type of noise being measured." And in Section 9.10.050 Public Property noise limits, paragraph (a) "No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on public property, a noise level more than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this chapter." The noise levels from Mr. Pack’s imported Brool,’:side data for one tennis court exceed the requirements of Section 9.10.050 by 2 dBA for ball hits, at 58 dBA for 40 feet. By applying the basic formula used in Table 4.5 ~Cf. L(d) in my ’qechnical Section"). at twenty-five feet the Avg. noise would be 52.08 dBA, peak Ball hits 62.08 dBA and peak SHOE squeaks 56.08 dBA, the latter two exceeding his Palo Alto Noise Limit. In the past ball throwing machines have been in use at the courts and I suspect, but have no figures available to prove it, that they also exceed the noise ordinance and should be banned. And practice walls can produce up to 62 dBA (Cf. his Reference (c). Page A-2). Mr. Pack apparently is concerned, with justification I believe, about ball hits and shoe squeaks possibly violating the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. If they are to be included because tt)ey are repetitive then it seems to me that voice noise has to be considered repetitive also, since many players persist in talking to one another during tennis play, for reasons of keeping score, social commentary on various shots or grunting or groaning, often far overshadowing the popping sounds of serves and hits and squeaks of shoes. From the fact that a tennis court is 78 feet in length and players are worldng hard and often communicating above other tennis noises, one can expect recurrent loud conversation during typical play. Added to the fact that some voices carry much better than others and that there may be onlookers and perhaps a public address system adding more noise, the total amount from one game can be appreciable. 7 As a guideline, from my refernce (4), page 41. estimates are given for varlous levels of voice noise and their dB levels at spe.ciiied distances: "Very annoying shouting at 2 feet. 90 dB Very loud talking, 2feet 80dB Loud Talking, 2 feet 70 dB Intrusive Loud Ta~king at 4 feet 60 dB Normal talking at 12 feet 50 dB" By applying the standard formula [L(d) described in my "Technical Section"] these values can be immediately converted to dB at 40 feet: Very annoying shouting at 40 feet, 64 d6 Very loud talking at 40 feet, 54 dB Loud talking at 40 feet, 44 dB Intrusive Loud Talking at 40 feet. 40 dB Normal talking at 40 feet, 40 dB I have selected what I believe to be a fair estimate of 60 dB at 40 feet for the level of repetitive voice noise often present during tennis I "’~ r "’" ~ ’~’~- ~",fl,~y, and ~t~h.-_,1,,,~ to listeners such as m~self. This estimate is consistent with the levels in reference ~..4~ and 2,y from personal experience I find that the most frustrating problem is not ball hits but voice noise, which is far more repetitious than shoe squeaks although at lower frequencies. The 60 dB figure is for two people playing on one court. For crowds on portable bleachers, which CSI proposes, an upper estimate of 70 dB at 40 feet is not unreasonable. Forty feet is the d~stance Mr. Pack uses in his Table 4.5 for his Brookside data. These estimates immediately allow one [See my "Technical Section"] to obtain numerical dBA estimates of voice noise coming from all the tennis courts to each property line, .~ust as Mr. Pack has done for ball hits and squeaks. The numerical results appear in my TABLE 8.5 and append the resul.~:-’, in Mr. P~L:k,. TABLE 4.~. TABLE 8.5 also changes my summaries on my page 6 with regard to maximum noise as follows: Maximum Noise Levels at Winter Lodg~,.Including Voice Noise North Property Line West Property Line Old dB Levels 66 to 76 j~, tOvu" ~’ New dB Levels 66 to 76 58 to 68 All these values exceed the Palo Alto City Noise limit of 56 dB. Note that with the orientation change in courts I and 2 and Mr. Pack’s distance assumptions, the maximum noise must stay the same. If bleachers are placed at any of courts I to 4 the noise maxima could be at the upper Maximum levels. Despite the fact that voice noise is not mentioned in Mr. Pack’s report 8 we do have it now and have to anticipate that it will increase, greatly if the proposed plan is allowed--and by several dB over the legal sound limits. The total amount of noise received throughout the day will increase severalfold (Cf. my page 5). I am not predicting the maxima dB levels will increase severalfold but that they will increase because a larger population is using the facility. Serious players paying $100 for membership can be expected to exercise their rights to shout, particularly if they are taking lessons, playing in tournaments, league games, doubles or cheering others on. Quite aside from what sound meter~ say about dBA, it is also recognized that there is a psychological component that can cI~ange the effect. For example, according to Thomas D. Rossing, [page 603 my reference (5)]: "Because noise that occurs at night is usually more annoying, a day-night equivalent level Ldn is frequently used to describe noise. In arriving at Ldn, one adds 10 dB to the sound level between 10 P.M. and 7 A.M. in the averaging process." This effect will not drop to 0 immediately after 7 a.m. Which means that for early morning tennis, the perceived loudness may surpass any of the maximum numbers in Mr. Pack’s report. Mr. Pack writes on page 7 of the Winterlodge report, 2nd sentence, and page 4 of ref (c). middle of the page. "The average noise level will increase by 3 dB, which is a barely noticeable increase" and "A difference of 3 dB is "just perceptible" to the human ear." This is not necessarily true. The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale, covering a huge breadth of intensities, and like the familiar Richter earthquake scale, 3 units represents a doubling of intensity. Whether or not this is noticeable depends on where you start. For very faint sounds, a doubling will still be undetectable. However at a noisy party, doubling one’s voice intensity can make the difference between being heard and not being heard. And the closer you get to a painful intensity, say 90 dB, the addition of 3 dB Will become more and more noticeable. Just as for earthquakes, two 7.0 earthquakes will be ’more noticeable than one. Two 8.0 earthquakes even more so. The average noise level Mr. Pack proposeS suffers from a major problem: it is a meaningless descriptor. Any average will remove from consideration troublesome peaks and present a mild and hopefully tolerable level of noise. It is like someone tapping me with a hammer, arguing that he has a graph smoothing out the peaks of pain and suffering, and the result shows only mild discomfort on the average, not really a problem. Not a very convincing argument for people. That even level is not what CSI is going to deliver to neighbors. Would that someone could transform tennis noise to such a bland form--the problem would be solved. Again, Mr. Pack’s average noise level figure for one tennis court in operation is 48 dB, imported from his Brookside report. His own hourly measurements in Appendix C for LEQ at Winterlodge average out to be 49.5 9 for .~_i,~turday March 2nd ,~,ut-ing the proposed hours of operation, and for ~- -dyou~uay ~. ~uu~ ::, u~ u~,~ aL~U~ ~,_,.~. ~L~ i:~ a ~.,.,U~U pressure level of .,L~ _. ,.~ noise ~ ....... ~ ~’~eu~" p. nUL:, ~ ......... ,~ ~n, refernce ~.,~’~" ’~,J~ values are labeled LYL in Appendix C according .- "Io Mr. Pa;k ~ Mr. P~vk ~ oYerall .EL. dB averages out for botl~ d~y.. at Palo Alto. during proposed hours of operation, at 49.3. How can the projected average noise I~I_, _ ,.,~, ." .... ,’Dg_games, 48 dB of his page ..~, 3rd bullet arising from nne_ courl, in play be less than thi~., 49.3 .,.~,--~,~_. ambi~nl_ . LEO. Yalue at Palo Alto?’ The average figures computed in Table 4.5 using the 48 dBA assumption are mi:::leading and do not address the real noise problem If Mr. Pack ~’-.-~-’--.,,=~,l.,to on attempting to use them, I insist that he raise them above the ambient level. A tennis court in use is ,~L,,. a noise abatement deYi ce. Ill Recommendation to reduce the maximum noise leve! from the service of balls to acceptable levels by construction of a 6 ft. high acoustically-effective barrier along the entire north property line. All the neighbors to the West are subject to peak noise levels of 56 dB [Mr. Pacl.’.:’s figure] plus relection noise off the proposed North wall. There is a double wa!l already in place over Matadero Creek designed solely as a flood water channel, it is about 3feet high and, while perhaps acoustically soundproof, offers no protection from tennis court noise, which I can assure you goes over freely into our back yards and bedrooms. Ellsworth Place residents have wood fences in their back yards, but I think there is no question they are not even remotely up to soundproof standards. Since no sound wall has been proposed there is no question--residents to the West get zero protection from all the noises of the tennis courts. If, as I believe, no relief will or can be proposed, i ask that you deny the use permit. We would be within 50 feet of three courts, four now in sporadic use, growing to about a tenfold increase in noise sources admittedly exceeding the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. IO Technical Section The important numerical results of this analysis follow from just a few elementary physics formula. As an example, annoying loud shouting can be measured at 90 dB at 2 feet. This measurement can under ideal conditions be used to find an estimated dB’reading of that same shouting at d feet, whatever d may be, by applying the free field point source formula L(d) = 90 + 20 x log(2/d), log to base 10 where L(d) is the standard decibel measurement. Calculating at d=40 (all distances are in feet), the dB reading for voice noise at 40 feet turns out to be 70 dB to two significant figures. If there are two sound sources, each with dB levels L I and L2 measut-ed at a third point, the combined sound level at the third point, again under ideal conditions (Mr. Pack’s assumption for his TABLE 4.5) is given by the formula L(For the Sum of two sources) = 10 x log( 10 + 10 The formula can be expanded to five sources using five sources instead of two, and that is what Mr. Pack does in his TABLE 4.5. Each number appearing under "average" is the corresponding term L I, L2,...L5. The repeated application of these two formula yield all the results in Mr. Pack’s table "TENNIS PLAYING NOISE LEVELS WINTERLODGE OF PALO ALTO". While the distances are approximate (Mr. Pack mentioned to me in our conversation June 21st that "he did not use a tape measure") one should keep in mind that if anyone hits a tennis ball at 15 feet instead of 20 feet from the North property line, for example, the maximum dB reading at the Northern property line would increase from 64.02 dB to 66.52, an increase of 2.5 dB. I have recalculated all Mr. Pack’s figures in the TOTAL column in each of the sections of Table 4.5. The average noise level at each boundary is calculated from the sum of five sources, the most predominant source being the nearest. For example in the upper left hand corner of Table 4.5 the TOTAL average noise levels at the North Property line are nearly the same as if court number 4 were the only contributor, it being only only 20 feet away. For BALL and SHOE noise the TOTAL values are really maximum values, (the assumption is that ball hits or shoes squeaks are instantaneous and never occur at the same time) and the values at each court are calculated from the L(d) formula above, using the Brookside data of page 3, part B. All values of Table 4.5 depend entirely on the Brookside data. If any of that data is in error, so is Table 4.5. One should also note 11 that the TOTAL values have been ~nunded off to the nearest integer-. For example, the dB value of Ball hits at the western property line under tile old scenario is really 56.06 dB, the maximum coming from courts 2, 3 or 4, which are only 50 feet away from the West property line. By rounding down to 56.00 Mr. Pack can argue tl~at the TOTAL dB level is just a_[t the Palo Alto noise limit. Actually, witI~ reflection from the North wall, the values will exceed 56 by a decibel or two at least. I have included in TABLE 8.5 my computations which show the expected noise levels from voice noise, using an input range of 60 to 70 dB at the 40 foot distance, e,.a~;.ly as Mr. Pacl.-.. has done for BALL and SHOE noise. For example, tI~e entry for- Court 4 in tile North Property Line, OLD Scenario with 70 dB Voice noise input is L(d) = 70 + 20 x log(4Oid); and at d=20, L(d)= 76.02 ~.~- t°The r~.ul .,. of all my calculations appear- in the columns under-"Voice Noise" in my TABLE 8.5. References (I) "Acoustical Analysis for the Planned Tennis Court Remodel Project, Winterlodge of Palo Alto, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto," April 8, 1996 by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants. (2) "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club, Saratoga," September 7, 1989 by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc, Consulting Engineers. (3) "Acoustics for You," by James H. Prout and Gordon R. Bienvenue, 1990. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. (4) "Noise, Noise, Noise" by Jerry Grey, 1975. The Westminster Press, P1~iladelphia. (5) "The Science of Sound" 2nd Edition. Thomas D. Rossing. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990. 12 O0~i ~...- OJ O~.,~O~0",000O~~D ~D 0 O~OJ ,~O~0",0000~,.O ~0 O0 ..~~O ~~0000~1 0 0 0 0 ~0 o o o o 0 ©@ ~) 0 75¢, Eiisworth Place Polo R!to: C.~ 94306 ~-!embe.rs of the Planning Commission and Citu C:our_.,c.ii Cii!4 of Paio fiito H a,~’Tii~ ~ 0 L--’~5~- ’’ :~ n~,~ue ~ ....... Paio ~~ £:~ -¯ .~i~01m.-.The use ~’~’"~’~* for the former Chuck [hompson ~005 ~idd!efie!d ~oad, ~pp!ication ~o. 96-UP-! Dear .~iernbers of the [:ommission and Council: "B citizen:s .,-’-igh~ to ha~=e a toierable piace to iipe must take T i~ " " ¯ " "ouer~ (i~ize~’s l~h~ ~0 ~L:[e~[~. ,h,~ iS faken from the aopeai .-~,~ ~0,,~ ~he ~di~’~ ......~,,.~n~.-~’ R~,+,~ "D~np!e cannel pick up andRugust ..,~? 1996. The letter goes on to sou.. , ,.~" ~au~u moue, while people can f~,~ oth~r p~a~.es to p!oy, especielly ~ c~se ~here there ore 6! . "~ -~~-"- --......p~,ff, tennis ~.~u, t., and iots of parks for picnic acti~ity." This point is one the other two appeal ietters (from myself and John ~braham end from Wei B!eng.i haue also tried to m~ke. ~Her;tion ~nd ~h~.,,., is K~ha~ ~i~.,,,~ ie~er is about - ne~ ,,,,.,,,,..,u,,,~.,~’~ ,~s"~ ";"~+~ the ~ ~ ~ ,.up,~.,=’, ,a,.nm.~ Commission and obtained -~ documentatien t-e~arding the YHCR. ~ie contrasted the conditions p~aced,~n th~ YH£R use oermit with those, placed on the ~*~nter ~or th~ new, e~panded "~-- ~-. _~nn,~ facilities at 3005 Hiddlefield Road. The contr~st is amazing and we are shocked that residents of *~-’- neighborhoods ~"-"~".,,~,~ be treated so diHerently, ~-.=, --~.~.,’m-- a~eed to the tennis use permit for the "benefit" of those residents ~ho live on Elismorth is not one we asked for arid is, in fact, of no benefit: the iine of fir trees along the creek. I asked L~saGrote on the phone why this condition was ad~ed and ~as told that it was for aesthetic effect. Since we al! haue tall fences, ~hich ~Iock out any uiew of the tennis courts, such a L=~sual screen is -"mo~, in ~ or 6 years, ~hen the trees have grown,nu~ needed. L~sa said "--" : the mitigation of noise afforded by them ~ouid ~e "minimai, at best.’: ! haue heard that foi- trees to hat.~e a muffling affect on norse, there ~-’-ould need to be a dense .~r.- of~ ~.~ een large (48" boxl trees. condI-~io_,, 5.2 of the YH[:i:I use permit I.p. 6) states that R ,~o-,"-- -~,, emphasis] ~andscaped buffet-, ~:onsist~ng of a ~:ombination of trees and shrubs, shaii be prm~ided along the rear and side property Iines...Replacement trees shall be a mi~ ’of mostig fi[~e and fifteen gallon size, ~ith some 24 in~:h box size a!so included." Note that Zoning ~:ede Section i" =~ ~n PFo.J~.u~, ~pecial requirements ~.,,, the public fac~tities ~ ~.~ (page i~59 of the ~unicipal Code~ does re~uir~ 6 f~n ....~,oo~ ~iue" " ,a,,~s~-~v~.e~ ~a .....~" "yard" b~,ee,,-~ ’, ~ ~- ~:reek and the property !ine. EIIs~orth Place is iust across.-,~,.,~_.,~*~"n~ r,-~-,..,.,.,. t~nni~ ~:ourts. T~o o~ these are d~rect!y behind m- back ~,ou,d e~p!ain my interest in this matter. number be at~aiiabie ~-- neighbors to ..-n -, ~-~’~ do am~ ~o~d ~f o~e re~ch~s ~ ~-~--~.~ m~chmeL This ¯ h~rp contrast to the " -¯"H~nagets on g,fu’: of the y~rR. ~h~, ,,m ~er~ ~ ~e ~i!~ie 2~ ~rs ~ ~] to the ~’~-h~"-- from Dan Logan, director o~ the Y~Cfl, . +~,~ Neighbors,. date~ fi~ri[ T gg6L Mr. LU.~, ha~_ ellen appointed a back-up ~,~ ...... ~!anagers ~,, ~..~ also ~.,,..,.=,,,,,,~r,~ to change, program times and Inr~tion~..... . ...~ ~o disturbing ~e~ghbors’ sieep and reduc~ offsi~,"~ parking ~nd ~-~’"--,~. probiems, fii the zoninq_ hearings,_ the appli~:ant balked at ellen ma~,,. phone number aL~ailabie for neighbors to use ~hen problems arise duMng times the ~Iinter Lodge is ciosed. ~ie ~ere told to "cai! the uo!k.~. The contrast bet~een the t~e facilities in their ~iiIingness to be ~ good neighbor is e~ddenI. Th~ -’--’÷--isn’t hei in .""-.... ¯ --_.:,yping our case. although it did facilitate ,.::~ good ...-,~9:~b_n~:.~ne~.:- of the Y~ICP,. iSee Canditian 1.! of the Y~Cfi ~-’---:.~ permit ~ ~, .~-...~: 2 Ross Road..I This condition does not state s~-mplL’: ~,:a.. a phone number be made a~aiiable, but that "The applicant shaI~ appoint a neighborhood iiaisor: u~ho may be contacted by neighbors of the pro.jec-t site during all hours of operation and during special clients to uoi~_:e compiaints about no~se ~ioiations. parking concerns or any -~ther ~,,~g:,,~,~,~ at the ?~C:Fi facilit.g .... The liaison shaii be .~ ~"" ’~’~ the .."ptu~4d,..u authoritL--’ to ..’:orrect any --,.dolation...and :o make euer.y n,_.,ghbo<liness! ~!hen theu..,,:e,==i;-~,~ ....~Lodg._.~" e~panded,, one of the conditior~s ,=’;as te bui!d ~’i-foot -,,.:ooder:’- fence next to the condominiums. Late[-, t~i..~ was - -~ and the fence was shortened down to 5 feet. !t was not maintained. It has neoer served as a soun.d buffer: so the residents didn’t think ¯ , ....."~, mak.’..r_.,!~ ~ -~’-,.~-- ouer. The ~.~,~II Is -,,,’--’.~"".’d, and......any-=.,..=.g but solid. ’---=,--=-- -c.an -------.-" *--’-.~’ holes betu..~eer’, planks. ~n.,=;: the ~-’s-~ oelmit :"".......... ¯ ., ............,,.,~ the e~.~panded tennis f~r_.iiities requires- ~ tvoodei~ fenc.=_- at the north .............. s~,u,~, barrier: if .......... doe.~ no good at ~.!! =.~ ~.~ --.~oe.~ " ~- not meet the requirements. Ed-.",~ard Pack, who did the sound .--_-.tudy for the Lodge as client, recommended "...it =.the sound barrier ~t the Price Court i--, ~. -, ~ .,-:= _-q ~ ~- ¯ -: ~" ’~=’~’-~’-I ....._ .u;~-~hout ~.,ack~, gaps or other¯ .,o~,u~,~.,must De --- ÷-: ~-""tlh-t;q~=t,|.e.,. ,~e,,,,:~, ~,~,, ~Io~,,~e for io~g-~eriT-; ~-":-~,~"* ....... ~.,~-~.--~.~ ~’.,ei,.ght ~-~ 2,5 Ibs, per sq. ft. If a wood fence ~- homogeneous sheet materi~is are preferabie m:er com.,entionai ~;ood ,.=.,:~.n,~ as the latter has a tendencu_, to warp and form openings age .... ’: ip. 5}. This warping is e~actly what happened to the ~:ood fence aiong -the condominiums. IThe tennis use permit .,~.~ nothing abou: the nero 8 foot fence supposedly to be built along the condominiums.) it seems apparent to me that the Winter Lodoe.. did ~,.o,. ~ comply u:-ith ,..=_.,,~,,,,_,..,~.r,,~,~,~,-,,-. regarding the oriQinal..~,~,,_,,," fence at the condominiums,, nor maintain a=ha-,, was buiit. " ’"" ",-=l~thout bein.(i-,_ ,,--~,::=,-od..,,,,o,,..,, to do better by the City, i-’= tuili b~.~qd similar shoddy neff: fences, ""~"-..-~,,-..., no perceptib!e sound buffer effect, at the north o -~, ’="- rio harris: i,. beJnq r-equired a~onq the ---’::reek~ Cheap--:-~nd ~,:ne ~~fR’_.~.~p~ -’w~o~en~, "fences are beina~ accepi~d ~.~ b~rriers at the tennis ~- -+ .......our.s and Wi~ter Lodge, ~hiie the Y~L:,, has masonry waIis on three sides~ The te~nis cour~s are an open ~hicb generates, even with only four courls in use~ much higher noise le~eis to the neighborhood th~n the encJosed Y~CA. Bihm--e is ~he ~a~nes._ or even raiionale here? Wh~ didn’t the u~r pmm~. TO~ ~d~,~i!~y include ~ condiUon iha~ masonry sound ~aiis con~ruct~ on ~hree sides of the ~ennis fa.4hdes ~o pro~ aii ne~ah~’’~~ ,.~. ~ ~ ~h~-,~-~ ~as-. no~ discussed in fh~. ...... hearing~. The neiahhors.~ _ might h~ beer ~ ~- n¢ of * ~,.~,,o, a ~n,.. possibi!iI~: -, ,- ~,~u,e~ the zenina admi~istraior kne~ about the V~C:A Noise .ieL~eis ~,~--"~ is another--- ....t"-~’’: betLueer: the tu...’o use .~; .....,......,_.,_,,,.,.~.~...~:~,-~;i:~ At the U!int.er ~n~ tennis f.~r.-,;m~ the noise limit -~ ~’-Lodge ~ "¯_,u dBF!, + ~ i~ne-~ ~.ondition 4.~ of ~L--:e ?HC:~ use permit " ~ u,._¯-,.p. ~,~ 90 .~J: I~,,"25,,"9~ "t~-~" :~[i ,-h.- i,~.. ime...,,~n,..a, equipment associated ~ith ~he ~ sh’=-’~ be designed and spe.cified se that when ali mechanical equipmer=t is operating.., noise ieuels do not exceed ~0 dgfi at the property iines .... ~r~.d ~.OrI.,=.’~iti=3r| ~;.-~J plO.,=iu=~.~~,~ outdoor amv,if, eu so~n~. The orig. ,,OlSu~.--- -~r~ Pa]o Noise is "~ ¯-"~,,.~,,~,,,,... couers mechar;ical n and Hr. ~.c,u,e.~-~es the mechar|icai noises of tennis -.~’:-~oPacks sound study -:-"~ hitting bans and "squeaking shoes". Why the difference in dBFi ieveis ,~" ~nd is thi~ fair? Find ~.~htI ate ,.u,~.c. noises a the ~iCfi and not ,n--. at th.~ tennis site? At an open f.~-.i~ih, such as tennis courts, ,aoice noise has a considerable impact on nearby nei_qhbors. ~p~..,..a,,,._. use permit for the tennis club fails to address the q,,.=,..if,-:"-~-,_,,.,,::~of i~.. for residents: the ~mpact of poice noise is i,qnored as though it ,~ere not a factor; on!y aperage mechanic~l noises LV~Fe considered in judging if the noise ordinance would be violated. ~hereas it’s the ~ noises we wi!i ha:~e to iipe Lvith (ree.d John Rbr~ham.’s portion of out appea~ ietferi, and abso!utelu no noise mif~oa~on LL, aS proposed for the LL~estern boundary, open though residents of EIISLL~Orth ¯ ..,u.,.~, u.t all the neighbors to four o~ the tennis ~urts. 4 i ~.~n~o -:h= gitu shou~.~ ma’~o~ similar neiehborhood meetir-,.,_-~s ~ ~:ondition el. the ~ter Lndne_ u . use permit an~ require the ~.cu.~--~" .... " to pre~ide ~- .........=~ .....P:+ :.~t ~ ="=i~ut~u~ t~ciiltator. The preterite of oi~y re~i-esentatiues iil££~ V~£:~ meetings. ~i~:" +~-~ - ....tar ~,_.,.,~_ use petmi~ ;for ,~9~,-,,,~ the ~eoden fence at the condos, and their confidenti~ +"=+e~;ists ..,~,~, there no desire on the nart of the Winter Led~e ~,,,, the nei~hbors.. This is understandable,, perhaps, sin,. there is an .nhe,~.nt ~:enflic:t in goals u~hi[:h hardly permits cooperation: tr~e Eiinter Lodoe ~- -~...~ w,.,hu~ to m.a~imiz8 the use of the silo and riRinhbnl-~ ~iis,h to preser[~e the tranquitilg of their homes: We mu¢:h iou~ i£tens tu" u~e the Coun£ii had mandated at its public ~’~-~-<-,,~.,,,,,,~.~ to the sche~uie of use E~e learned about at the . zonin~ Keti entt§ pi~--r.~ and q..>oup i~,~¢ons for ~.h;,.-,-~,,. "-",..,,,,, ~,,. ~tonda~ through ir~ addition, there is the schedule of the Pale filto Tennis Club: L~gue Pi~y. all courts in use at on~e, both singles ~nd doub,e... 5 .~ .o:a,, also preI~a;e.~ ~ r .~ ,+- ~oni~ o,-- n ..... -,~ ~.~. ’!--:tatus Beoort. on ~he u~r~,.,..:, annually, as required in the use permit ,,..,-,m...on. sn,~,, fund p;-ep~ration of ~ ten condition monit,-’:~,’~:_--,:,~ ~nd opera~mns ~tus report to be prepared annually, The P~ann~ng L,~,~:O. ~JI~aum,,.~-i~;-.~e,.- pr~na[ation. _. -f the. .repnrf_ ...... consuJtar~t. "~-~. v~r.~ s,=~. Best funds ........ -~.~ ~h~ .... -~h~hL, orLmod ~:om~iaints ~nd Y responses. The minutiae a~_ the u, remouin~., a Hnht.... . bu!b ~,,~,. ~m. at; ~.tmio~-light, ~,,.~,~ ~hm U ~,:.,.! r: ,.-"rise at .*h.~ s~-P_.tJno t-lhk? is +~,u~_..,-..,~.-,..aus._. fees to :: bitinr~._ off more than it ,::an .,_:he~," finan,,.iaHu., mith this ~.,,e[~ ~n*,~,-.~r~.-,?:... ....... Natalie Fisher 6 Appeal ol~ decision by Zoning Administrator regarding the former Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis site at 3005 Middlefield Road by Natalie Fisher and John Abraham° 96-UP-I The following copies of documents are to be added to the appea! letter of Natalie Fisher and John Abraham filed August 26, 1996 at the Palo Alto Planning Department: A) Envirnomental Resources Section, Chapter 7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1985, ’Including Amendments to date. Originally published by the City of Palo Alto February 2, 1981. The marked items (pages 60, 62 and 63) apply to our statements concerning Noise barriers and the effects of noise levels greater than 55 dBA on neighbors. Copied at the Planning Department. None of these items from the CompreI1ensive Plan appear in the Zoning Decision 96-UP-I. B) "Noise Assessment Study of the Swim Race Starting System, Brookside Swim & Racquet Club, Saratoga", March 16, 1995 by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. This report is on file at the Planning Department in the file on Brookside at the City of Saratoga. The marked portions (pages 2 and 3) indicate the effects of a speaker system on neighbors at Brookside and similarly apply to the proposed Tennis facility in Palo Alto. C) The excerpts entitled "Noise". are from the EIR regarding the YMCA expansion at 3412 Ross Road in 1991. This report is currently in the library at the Planning Department at Palo Alto, and the YMCA has a copy. The entire report is an excellent example of how a responsible sound study can and should be done at a sports center such as the YMCA or the Middlefield tennis facility. The marked sections (pages 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78) show where neighbors concerns are addressed. The evaluating criteria include the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and ISO methodology as well as the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In the sound analysis done for the proposed tennis facility the Palo Alto Municipal Code is used as a "walk away" criterion and completely ignores noise content and deficiencies in the code. The problems originating at Shoreline Amphitheatre illustrate the inadequacy of such an approach. The marked areas also show that the level of predicted noise at the YMCA before mitigations is lower than the predicted leveis at the proposed tennis site. For comparison purposes, based on my own walking observations in Mid-September of this year, the YMCA has about 18 to 21 adjacent neighbors compared to about 25 near neighbors at Winterlodge, 9 homes being on Ellsworth Place. There are about 108 parking spaces of all types at Winterlodge and about 205 parking spaces of all types at the YMCA. From various drawings the fence perimeter about the YMCA is about 1213 feet (~xcluding the Ross Road side) and at Winterlodge th~ Ellsworth Place and Price Court fence length totals about 852 feet. The Condominium fence from Price Court to the Winterlodge property adds about 163 feet. A responsible discussion of sound barriers is also marked (pages 78-9). Included is a discussion of the acoustic effects of the Fenstone Pre-engineered Wall System at the YMCA. The latter is in the computer archives at the Planning Department in Palo Alto under the 3412 Ross address. The true elevation, including berms, ranges from about 5 to 11 feet above the surface of the parking lot. The proposed fence at Price Court is only 6 feet above the tennis courts. Note that a six foot tennis player hitting a serve will impact a ball 8.5 or 9 feet above the court. With the possibility of outdoor speakers and bleachers for special events, fund raisers, etc, a 6 foot height at the proposed tennis facility is woefully inadequate. Note also that wood construction, while theoretically satisfactory, warps and cracks. Any deviation from air tightness affects sound blocking qualities. An inspection of the existi~ig wood fence along the former Chuck Thompson property line next to the Condominiums shows many holes, broken boards and vines poking through. It is anything but a sound barrier. D) Specifications are given for another type of masonry sound wall, at 600 Colorado Avenue, St. Marks Church in Palo Alto built about 1992. This also appears in the computer archives at the Palo Alto Planning Department. E) Use Permit 90-UP-38 at 3412 Ross Road, Palo Alto Planning Department. The marked areas (pages I, 2, 5 and 6) show the official mitigations regarding neighbors such as regular meetings to review the status of compliance, written reports, review before Planning Commission with possible permit revocation or modification. Note none of these mitigations have been proposed for the neighbors of the proposed tennis courts. F) Use Permit 92-UP-26 at 600 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto Planning Department. Note again the marked items (pages 1,2 and 3) regard official mitigations for neighbors such as neighborhood liason person available to receive complaints, regularly scheduled meetings with neighbors, advance notice, follow-up reports, penalties for non-complianceincluding possible revocation. 6O -~: .COI~,PREHENSI~’E PLAN and Hellyer Canyon in San Jose, that could be used after the present local sites are closed. The Palo Alto Bayiands landRll will not be available after the early 1990s. Noise The Noise Problem Noise is a part of modern society-noise from motorized labor-saving devices, transportation vehicles, and recreation devices. People can tolerate or ignore a certain amount of noise but adverse effects including outright hearing im- pairment and other dangers to health are present in many exposures to noise. The objective of this section of the Plan and Palo Alto’s continuing Noise Control Program is to reduce noise which affects humans adversely. The Effects of Noise on People The problem of controlling noise is difficult because it af- fects each individual in a different way. People do not hear sounds alike or react to them in the same way. Each person’s reaction to nq~e depends on characteristics of the noise itself-the loudness, duration, and frequency content, for example. The effect of noise on people is also deter- mined by the listener and the situation. The effect of noise levels above 80 dBA can range from a temporary loss of ability to hear quiet sounds up to perma- nent and irreversible loss of normal hearing. Fortunately, few exposures to noise levels causing permanent hearing damage occur in Palo Alto. However, some problems may occur for those who attend loud musi- cal recreational events or for persons whose jobs involve high noise levels. Occupational noise is regulated by state and federal legislation. Noise may also disrupt activities such as sleep, conver- sation, reading, listening to records, or watching television. Studies have shown that noise not only may prevent ’sleep but may seriously disturb the quality of sleep without fully awakening the sleeper. Noise levels over 55 dBA disrupt all types of normal listening activities. Noise also causes such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance, stress, and tension. If these effects are continued, they can cause ve~, serious emotional and psychological problems. The noise envi- ronment is often not blamed directly for these reactions if Major sources of traffic noise are streets with high volumes, high speed, a large number of traffic controls or many trucks, buses, and other loud vehicles. Southern Pacific trains are another major source of noise. During peak traffic periods, the noise levels in parentheses are generally exceeded I0 per cent of the time at 50 feet from the traffic. Noise levels of 50 to 60 dBA are typical in neighborhoods not subject to heavy traffic. i How Loud Is Loud? Relative Intensity Sound Level of sound in dBA 1,000,000,000,000 Au t o horn (3 ’). 4-engine jet (100’)120 100,000,000,000 Rock music inside nightclub 110 10,000,000,000 Motorcycle without muffler accelerating. Jackhammer (25’)100 1,000,000,000 Stock motorcycle accelerating (25’)90 100,000,000 Power lawn mower (20’) ’80 10,000,000 Steady urban traffic (25’)70 1,000,000 Normal conversation (3’)60 100,000 Daytime street, no nearby traffic 50 10,000 Quiet office. Quiet neighborhood 40 1,000 lnside quiet home. Soft whisper (10’)30 100 Movie or recording studio 20 10 Barely audible sound 10 1 Threshold of hearing 0 A decibel (dBA) is a unit of measurement indicating the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear. Every increase of I0 dBA doubles the perceived loudiaess although the noise is actually ten times more intense. For example, a power lawn mower (80 dBA) seems twice as loud as steady urban traffic (70 dBA). !i E~WI RON~ENTA.L RESOURCES the listener is not consciously aware of the noise intrusion. He or she may only be aware of an increased irritability and uneasiness. So protection against the intrusion of disturbing noise is particularly important to mental and emotional health. Motor Vehicle Noise Vehicle noise is the most pervasive noise in Polo Alto and in most other communities. Through numbers alone, the effect of motor vehicle noise would be significant, even if each.individual vehicle met state noise standards. Federal and state legislation will gradually reduce individual vehicle noise limits through i988, but even then freeways and major city streets will remain the most significant com- munity noise sources, particularly in Polo Alto where vehicle traffic is expected to increase. and unpredictable disturbances. Except for emergency equipment and activities, all non-transportation noise is regulated by the Pa!o Alto Noise Ordinance. Control of Noise Sources Polo Alto has done much to reduce noise and can continue to do so. However, some noise sources, such as railroads and certain airplanes, are controlled by agencies outside the City. However, the City can assist in the enforcement of regulations. ~. Policy 9: Support national an?~ state legislation and pro- grams which will reduce noise in Palo Alto. Polo Alto can assist other agencies in developing leNslation and can promote enforcement of adopted standards. Railroad Noise Twenty.two Southern Pacific Railroad commuter trains run in each direction through Pato Alto daily during the week, and 10 each way on weekends. Almost all of these trains stop at one or both stations in Polo Alto. Also, up to 70 fast freight trains pass through weekly, usually at night. Annoyance from train noise, which is between 80 and 95 dBA at 100 feet, is felt most acutely by residents along Alma Street, approximately 125 feet east of the tracks and along Mariposa Str.eet and Park Boulevard, where houses are only 50.85 feet west of the tracks. Until 1972, no agency had authority to regulate railroad noise. Now the Federal Environmental Protection Agency is beginning to set such standards which Polo Alto can help to enforce. Aircraft Noise Aircraft noise in Palo Alto is a relatively small part of the City’s noise environment. In recent years, aircraft on sub- marine patrol and training aircraft operating from Moffett Field Naval Air Station have sporadically flown over the southeast section of the City on daytime .training flights. This activity is decreasing as other training methods-are used. Overflights of large aircraft from Sa~ Jose Municipal Air- port and San Francisco*International Airport are at alti. tudes which make their noise effect negligible at ground level. Noise levels caused by small private aircraft using the Palo Alto airport are genera!ly low because airport use is limited to two.engine planes under 12,500 pounds, and a minimum altitude of 1200 feet is required over the popu- lated areas west of the Bayshore Freeway. Helicopter flights and the concentration of small aircraft flights are particu- larly noisy. Noise levels should be kept low. Aircraft noise problems will increase if’the number of flights is significantly increased, flight patterns are changed, or larger planes use the airport. Non-Transportatiori Noise Noises not associated with transportation are more variable’ Program 30." Provide input on significant noise legislation proposals. Pr. ogrctm 31: Promote enforcement of existing state and federal noise legislation. Under state la,~v, Pa!o Alto may not regulate noise from motor vehicles. The Polo Alto Noise Control Program emphasizes police department enforcement of existing California VehJcte Code regulations prohibiting loud motor vehicle mufflers of all kinds. From 1973 through 1975 over 4000 muffler violations were corrected through this program. Program 32: Provide City enforcement of stare’muffler and exhaust system regulations. In 1972, Palo Alto adopted a noise ordinance which has resulted in an enforcement program designed to reduce the amount of noise. The Noise Control Program involves City enforcement of state motor vehicle regulations and control of non-vehicular noises~ Policy 10: See that non.vehicular noise sources in Palo Alto meet City noise ordinance regul~-[fons. Program 33: Provide aggressive enforcement of the City noise ordinance. The noise ordinance is primarily enforced by police patrol officers. Common sources of industrial noise include pumps and air compressors, air conditioners, and construction equip- ment. Most noise complaints about industry are made by residents of riearby areas when machinery is run during the evening. Engineering modifications to reduce the noise usually solve these problems. Residential sources causing frequent problems are am- plified music, parties, barking dogs, and power equipment such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, saws, or swimming pool pumps. Noise ordinance controls apply to ea’ch of these disturbances. Program 34." Modify City equipment to meet noise ordi- nance requirements. 62 COM PREHENSIV’E’P.LAN An important phase of the City noise control program is the continuing effort to identif.v, test, and use quiet equip- ment and methods. Developing better mufflers and quieter equipment is primarily the manufacturer’s responsibility but slow progress in this area has resulted in local efforts at finding effective noise reducing equipment. Planning and Design for Noise Protection In addition to reducing vehicle and other noises, much can be done to protect people from hi~ noise levels through proper site layout, building design, and construction methods. When there are natural features on a site, such as hills and ridges, valteys and depressions, they should be pre- served and incorporated into the site plan as a buffer against noise sources. Noise can be scattered, absorbed, and reduced to some degree by. all types of leafy plants. A planted strip of trees and bushes 50-100 feet wide is necessary to reduce the noise leve! significantly. There are two other ways in which plants can be useful ,in reducing the effect of noise. First, a visual screen of plants .between a noise source and a sensitive area is not only aesthetically pleasing, but also reduces the noise level Recommended Average Daytime LI0 Noise I.~veis Land Use Superior Acceptable Light Industrial-Outd.9_~r 65 dBA 75 dBA Commercial/Office Outdoor 60 dBA 70 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 55 dBA Public/Park Outdoor 55 ~IBA 65 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 55 dBA Residential Outd6or 55 dBA 65 dBA Indoor 40 dBA 50 dBA The LIO noise level is the level exceeded only 10 per cent of the time. The recommended maximum levels are based upon preventing noise interference with human activities and are wel! below levels which could damage heanng. The indoor standards apply to ’noise produced by outdoor noise sources. Residential outdoor levels should be l0 dBA lower in the evening than in the daytime. ~Policy 11 : Ensure compliance ’with existing noise ~aws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise. Program 35." Analyze noise impacts of new projects. The noise environment may be an important factor in the successful accommodation of chan~ng uses for land and buildings. When planning a project in an existing noise envi- ronment, some easing of the effect on people can be achieved through proper design and construction methods to reflect or absorb the noise before it reaches them. New development, particularly that of higher density, will increase the amount of noise, but proper design can help lessen this effect. Areas where residential and non.residential uses are mixed or close together are of special concern. Design of new projects shoutd reduce noise wherever possible, espe- cially noise from parking, refuse storage, loading areas, and outside equipment such as ventilation, heating, and air conditioning apparatus. Planting and landscaping, especially with solid barriers or naturalcontours, can be valuable to control noise. However, plants do not reflect much" sound and a very large amourit of thick foliage is need-ed to absorb measurable amounts of noise. A single row of trees or bushes is not an effective noise barrier. Cavities which face or surround noise sources and act as reverbera-tion chambers should be avoided. Buildings with special nmse insu- lation can be located facing noise sources and act as shields for other portions of the site. ENVIRONMEI~-I’AL RESOURCES 63 perceived by those who cannot see the noise source. Rows of dense bushes, vines, or trees planted along a major ex- pressway soften the impact of the traffic, even though the actuaJ noise level is reduced very little. Second, bushy plants located around walls, l-rills, road shoulders, and other large impervious obstacles improve their effectiveness as noise barriers and lower the amount of noise reflected from hard surfaces. Care should be taken in locating planting screens to avoid creating traffic hazards or obscuring visibility. Sound intensity or level increases as distance from a noise source decreases. Buildings should be located to take advantage of whatever distances are available on the site. Physical characteristics of buildings can provide two kinds of noise control benefits-reduction in sound levels transmitted into the building, arid reduction in sound levels for nearby outdoor areas. Long and ki~ buildings can be excellent noise barriers to protect portions of the site. Enclosed spaces facing a noise source should be avoided because they collect and amplify noise. Courtyards and similar desi_mas should face away from any significant noise sources. If possible, build- ings should be oriented so that a corner rather than a side faces a noise source. This will he!p disperse noise in severn directions. Noise-producing facilities such as parking lots or swimming po.ols should not be enclosed by living units, or serious noise disturbances to residents may occur. Program 36: Require adequate noise control in ali new buildings. In new buildings, efforts should be made to prevent trans- mission of outside noises, to minimize equipment noises, and to minimize noise transmission between one room or area and other parts of the building. California law requires new multiple-family buildings to maintain an interior noise level due to exterior noise of less than 45 dBA in any room. This means that attention must be paid to proper architectural design’, construction mate- hgh walls constructed of concrete, brick, or other dense materials can shield areas from loud noise sources ~uch as heavy traffic. They .should be designed and landscaped for visual interest. rials, construction, methods, and heating, plumbing, and electrical equipment. Deficiencies in any of these areas will compromise other good noise reduction practices. Program 37." Construct noise barriers where the impact o~ ~ noises can be significantly reduced. ~. noise barrier may be any solidjstructure hi~ and. dense enou~2t to reflect rather than transmi: sound waves. Many Palo Alto neig.hborhoods exposed to hi~ transportation noise environments are candidates for noise barrier pro- tection-Bayshore Freeway, Mma Street, Embarcadero Road, and Middle field Road, for exam.pie. Many are limited by the necessity for street and driveway access throu~ the barrier, which severely reduces its effectiveness. The aes. thetic effect of a wall on a neighborhood must be con- sidered. Often a noise barrier can be incorporated in the original tract design to great advantage without looking un- si~tly. While an eight foot wall betweer£ Alma Street and SP tracks would reduce a major noise source for area res- idents, the noise from motor vehicle traffic would remain an irritant. The City has very little money to build noise barriers. However, noise barriers can be included in some new developments and constructed in existing nei~bor- hoods throug.h the use of assessment districts. Program 38." Improve capability to predict noise impacts of proposed activities. Research on noise impacts is important in quieting vehicles and other equipment, developing new construction and site planning standards and techniques, and learning more about the effect of noise on humans. Palo Alto should encourage and participate in appropriate noise research efforts. Air Quality What is Air Pollution? Mr pollutants are those substan~’~e~ found in the atmosphere which exceed naturally occuring quantities and are un- desirable or harmful in some way. Many kinds of pol. lutants, including particulates, liquid mists, and gases have been identified. Most human activities cause some air pollution. Some pollutant emissions pose a direct threat to health. In more subtle ways many air pollutants are responsible for plant damage and crop losses, physical deterioration of materials, and aesthetic depreciation. Federal Primary Am- bient Mr Quality Standards establish the levels of air pollution which represent potentiaI danger to human health. Improving Palo Alto’s air quality is the objective of this section. Accomplishment involves local, regional, state, and federal programs. Air Pollutants and Their Effects Particulates, carbon monoxide, organic corn.pounds, nitro- gen oxides, and sulfur oxides are among the major pollu- tants named for control because of their adverse effects. 78 COMPREHENSWE PL,kN 11.Pale Alto, City of, E1 Camlno Real Design Guidelines, Novem- ber, 1979. 12.Pale Alto. City of, Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Pale Alto, February, 1979. 13.Pale Alto, City of, Historic Buildings Inventory,, February, 1979. 14.Portola Valley General Plan. Proposed Scenic Road and High- way Element draft, July. 19":5. 15. San Francisco, City’ of, San Francisco Urban Design Plan. 1972. 16. San blateo County. Proposed Scenic Road System Map, 1973. 17. Santa Clara County General Plan, Scenic Highways Element,adopted by Board of Supe.~isors, Resolution, February, 1975. 18. Santa Clara Count3.’, Draft Background Report for the ScenicHighway Element, August, 1974. 19. Southworth. btichael and Kevin Lynch, Designing and blanag- ins The Strip, Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. andHarvard University, October, 1974. Conservation 1. Pale Alto. City of, Comprehensive Plan Background Report onConservation. July. 1975, 2. Pale AIto, City of. Comprehensive Plan-First Draft, June, 1975. 3. Palo Alto, City of. General Plan, Open Space Element, adopted April, 1972, amended Apr:i. 1973. 4. San Mateo Count>’ Histo::aal Association. La Peninsula, vol. XIV, no. 4. March. !968. 5. San Mateo County Histor,cai Association, La Peninsula, voi.XV. no. 4, February, 1970. 6,Santa Clara County General Plan. A Plan for the Conservation of Resources. adopted June. 1973. Resource Management I. Califorma, State of, State SoIid Waste Management Board, SolidWaste Management Policy for California. August 31, 1979. 2. Jenks and Adamson, A Program for Water Reclamation and Ground Water Recharge Servmg the Pale Alto Bayfront Area, Pre-Design Report, October, 197,1.. 3. Metcalf and Eddy Engineers, Solid Waste Managemen’t Plan for Santa Clara County, December, I975. a. Pale Alto, City of, Report of the Pale Alto Citizens Committee for Long Term Power Supply Alternatives, June, 1976. 5. Pale Alto. City of, Staff Analysis of the PuNic Utility Regula-tory’ Policies Act Standards. October 2. 1980. 6,Pale Alto. City of, Solar Energy Program Proposal for the Cityof Pale Alto, January 31. 1980. Noise 1. American Speech and Hearing Association. "Noise as’a Public Health Hazard," Conference Proceedings, February, 1969. 2. California. State of, Vehicle Code, Sections 23130, 27150, 27151 and 27160. 3. Highway Research Board. National Academy of Sciences,"Highway Noise-A Design Guide for Highway Engineers," National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, 1971. 4.Pale Alto. City of, Comprehensive Plan Background Report on Noise, July, 1975. 5.Pale Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan-First Draft, June, 1975. 6. Pale Alto, City of, Municipal Code, Section 9.10 "Noise." 7. Pale Alto, City of, "To Quiet a City .... "’ June, 1974. 8, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, "Airborne, Impact. and Structure Borne Norse-Control in Multi-famdy Dwelhngs." September. 1967. 9.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "’Community Noise," December. 1971. Air Quality 1. Bay Area A~r Pollution Control Distnct."Air Currents," April, 1975. 2. Bay Area Air Pollution Control DIsmcl, "Air Pollutmn and the San Francisco Bay Area," Ninth Edition. January. 1975. 3,League of Women Voters of the Bay’ Area. "Transportation and A~r Pollution," i975. 4.Pale Alto, City of, Comprehensive Plan Background Report on Air Quality. July, 1975. 5.Pale Alto, City of, Comprehensive Plan-First Draft, June, 1975. 6. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Air Quahry Criteria documents for Carbon Monoxide (Nauonal A:r Pol- lution Control Administration Pub. No. AP-62L Photochem:cat Oxidants (NAPCA Pub. No. AP-63). Hydrocarbons (NAPeA Pub. No. AP-64), btarch. 1970 7.U.S. Dept. of Health, EducaIion & Welfare, Air Quality Criteria documents for Particulate Matter INationa! Air Pollutmn *Control Admmistratmn Pub. No. AP-49), and Sulfur O\~des (NACPA Pub, No. AP-50), January, 1969. 8.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Clean Air and Your Car," March, 1974. Seismic Safety/General Safety 1. Borcherdt, R, D., and J. F. Gibbs, Prediction of Ma’,~mum Earihquake Intensities for the San Francisco Bay Rob:on. United States Geological Survey Open File Report 75-!80, 1975. 2.Brabb, E.’E., Preliminary Geologic Map of the Contr,:’, Santa Cruz Mountains, California, USGSiHousmg and Urban De~eiop- ment San Francisco Bay Region Env*ronment and Re:ources Planning Study, Basic Data Contribution 6, 1970. 3. California, State of, Joint Committee on Seismic Sac’ely. Meeting the Earthquake Challenge. Final Report to the: Leg~> lature, 1974, 4. Dibblee, T. J., Geology of the Pale Alto Quadrangle. Santa Clara and San blateo counties. California. Cahfornm D~lsmn ofMines and Geology, Map 8, 1966. 5. Lawson, Andrew C,, Chairman. State Earthquake lnveqIgatlon Commission, Report on the California Earthquake of A~’rli 1 ~. 1906, 3 vols., Carnegie lnsutute of Washington, 1908. 6. McLaughtin, R. J., The Sargent Berrocal Fault Zone and Its Relation to the Southern San Francisco Bay Region ,,n~a SantaClara Valley, California, USGS Journal of Research, VoI. 2. No. 5 September-October, 1974. 7. Nichols. D. R., and J. M. Buchanan-Banks, Reducing Seismic Hazards Through Land Use Planning, USGS Earthquake in- formation Bulletin, November-December, 1973. Vol. 5, No, 6. 8. Pate Alto, City of, Comprehensive Plan-First Draft, June, 1975. 9.Pale Alto, City of, Comprehensive Plan So,stoic Safely Back- ground Report, December. 1975. 10.Pale Alto. City of, Emergency Plan, July. 1971 ~rev~sed April. 1973.) I I. Pale Alto, City of, Open Space Element of the General Plan. 1972. amended April, 1973. 12.Pampeyan, E, H., Geologic Map of the Pale Alto 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counues. Cahtorma, USGSiHUD San Francisco Bay" Regmn Environment and Resources Planning Study, Bas,c Data Contribution 2. 1970. 13.Poland, J, F.. Land Subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley. Alameda, San Marco. and Santa Clara Counue~. Caitlorma. USGSiHUD San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, Technical Repor~ 2. 1971 14,Rogers. T, H., and J. W. Williams, Potential Selsml,: Hazard, inSanta Clara County. California, California Dry,stun ol Mmc~ and Geology. Special Report 107, 1974. 15.San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay Plan Supplement, January. 1969. 16.San Francisco Department of City Planning. Commum:y Safety Plan, A Proposal for Citizen Review, 1974, 17.Tudor Engineering Company. A Report to the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District on the Ba.vlands Salt Water Flood Control Planning Study, January. 1973 18.U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceam~ and A’,mu,. ~heric Administration. San Fernando, Calffmma, Ea:thqu,aa,,e of February 9, 1971,3 vol., Washington, D.C., 1973 19.~,’allace, Robert E.. Goals. Strategy and Tasks of the Earth- quake Hazard Reduction Program. USGS, Geological Surve.v Orcular 701, 1974. 20.~.’ebster, D. A.. Slap Showing Areas Bordering the Southern Part of San Francisco Bay Where a H~gh \~ater Table ,May Adversely Affect Land Use, USGS,’HUD San Francisco Bay ROB,on Environment and Resources Planmng Stud.v, Basic Data Contnbuuon 61.1973. EDWARD I.. PA(~K ASSOCIATES ,INC. ~30 E. DUNCE AVENL,’E, SUITE F September 7, 1989 Project NO. 21-083 Mr. Bob Dunnett Brookside Swim and Racquet Club 19127 Cox Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject:Noise Assessment Study. of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club, Saratoga Ref.(a): Noise Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, Article 7-30, Noise Control, Adopted August 1987 Dear Mr. Dunnett: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club in Saratoga. The noise levels presented herein were evaluated against the noise standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance, Ref. (a), which specifies a noise level limit of 6 dBA above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane o Sections I and II of this rep6~t contain our findings and evaluations, respectively. Appendix A, attached, contains noise data measured during a swim meet. The findings presented ~elo~ include the results of the noise level analysis and an evaluation against the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. The standards specify a limit of 6 dBA above the local ambient. Measurements at several locatlons along the tennis club and resldantlal prope~y lines indicated an a~blent level of 48 dBA. Thus, the noise level limit at ~he r~sldentlal proper~y planes is 54 daA. The noise levels shown below are without the appllcatlon of ~itlgatlon measures. The ~axiwaa noise levels measured at five locations along the east and north tennis olub proper~y lines ¯produced by the club are in compllan~e With the City of Saratoga Noise Ordlnan~° The ~axinu~ noise levels measured at five locatlons along the east and north prol~e~cy lln~ of the club ranged from 48 to 58 dBA. Thus, ~he noise levels exceeded the llmlts of ~he Saratoga 1olse Ordlnanc~ by. 2 dB a~ ~ locations. IIo along the ~ast an~ no~-~h tennis club prope~y lines, Measurements were made on August 31, 19.89 ~usi~ a Bruel and KJaer 2231 sound analyzer. This test reflecte~ typical weekday activities. Measurements were aEso made on July 8, i~89 Wing a Ge~ Rad Type 1933 sound analyzer. This test refl~ed typical Measurement Location I was approximately I00 ft. from ~he pool area. Locations 2 through 5 were approximately 40 ft. from the respective tennis court areas. The results of the measurements are shown in Table I, below. Noise Levels Measured at t~J_~ I. East of Pool 52 2..Bleachers at Easterly Tennis Cou~48 3. Northeast Corner of Tennis Courts 45 40 Water Fountain at North Proper~y Line 44 5. Near Driveway at North Property Line 43 56 51 noise levels in excess of the standards. However, the ~oslden~e nearest Lo=atlon 2 is approximately 80 ft. away and behln~ the property llne lance. Therefore, the peakno~ I~I at this The noise level at the northeast corner of the club site is also 2 dB in excess of the standards. However, the existing property llne fence reduces the noise levels by 2 ~B, as it is not a solid air-tight noise barrier. Thus, th~ peak noise level i~pacSing the residence nearest the northeast ~orne~ of the tennis courts is 56 ~BA. levels. In conclusion, one residence along the northeast corner of the club is i~pact~b¥ tennis cl~ a~iviti~ ~ ~e noti~le. The noise levels presented are from field measurements and calculations an~ are correct to the best of our~nowledge. However, changes in activities, apparatus, or e~uIp~nt may o produce long-range noise levels dlfferent~fro~ our test results° please call EDW~ Attachment: The noise levels presented below were measured on June 24,. 1989 during a seml-annual swim meet. The noise levels were measured using a Gen Rad Type 1933 sonnd analyzer, which was calibrated before and after the tests to assure a=~uracy. The noise levels were evaluated agalnstthe standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance, which specifies a limit of 6 dB a~ove the local ambient at the nearest property plane. The ambient noise level at the adjacent property planes is 48 d~A. ~e ~tandard for this evaluation is 54 The noise levels presented below are without the appl£catlon of mitigation measures. the Nearest Residential Property ~ A maximum noise level due to activities at the club, at the nearest residential property plane, directly act.s8 Saratoga Creek from the pool and basketball court is 71 dBA. The noise level is from ~hildren perfozwlng and" is 17 dB in excess of the standards. The whistle used to call the swim meet racers to the star~ing blocks produced a ~axiuu~ level of 63 ~SA at the n~arest residential p~"opel"T.y plane. ~Is level A-1 Individual tennis prac~iclng against the practice wall produced levels up to 62 dBA. These levels are up to 8 dB in excess of the ~tandardm. The general noise of the swin ~ee~: produced levels up to 59 dBA at the nearest residential property plane. Thus, the levels are up to 5 dB in excess of the standa~-ds o Table IX, below, shows the noise levels measured at five property line locations during the swim meeto I. East of Pool 2. Bleachers at Easterly Tennis Courts 3. Northeast Corner of Tennis Courts4. Water Foun~aln at North Proper~y Li~e 5: Near Driveway at North Property Line 82 58 58 56 ! " Basketball playlng produced noise levels up to 64 d~A at a I0. ft. distance. At In conclusion, noise levels produced during the sul-annual ~i~ meet az~ ~ to 17 dB in excess of ~e s~da~ of ~@ C~ of S~~o~se O~in~ce. EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1030 E. DUANE AVENUE, SUITE F ACOHStlC(?I Consult~Tnts TEL. 408-730-.5574 SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 . FAX: 408-730-0702 March 16, 1995 Project No. 27-029 Mr. Richard Norton Brookside Swim & Racquet Club 19127 Cox Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject:Noise Assessment Study of the Swim Race Starting System, Brookside Swim & Racquet Club, Saratoga Dear Mr. Norton: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study of the swim race starting system at the Brookside Swim & Racquet Club in Saratoga. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the ambient noise environment at the club site perimeter (25 f~. beyond the property lines) and the operational sound levels of the starting system. Section I and II of this report contain a summary of our findings and descriptions of the sound level measurement methodologies, respectively. I.Summary or Findings The noise levels shown in Table I, below, represent the ambient noise environment at four locations at the periphery of the club site on a Saturday morning, and the starting system operational levels under normal operating conditions. Location I was along the east property Iine closest to the pool, Location 2 was at the north property line near the drinking fountain, Locat:lon 3 was at the, west property line closest to the pool and Location 4 was along the south property line in the parking lot. Due to the physical limitations in accessing locations 25 ft. beyond the property lines, noise levels were calculated for the areas. The calculated sound levels are also provided in Table I. MEMBER. ACOUS]3CAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ~,NGINEEERING SOCIE’~" 2 TABLEI Ambient and Starting System Operational Noise, Levels. Brookside Swims& Racquet Club Location and Time Ambient Sound Levels, dBA Announcement Volume at meas. location nearest neighbor prop_. Beep_ A._~_.g. Max._~ A_y..gv-. Max 1)9:00- 9:30 a.m.57 84 57 64 78 51 58 12:30- 12:45 p.m.57 2)9:00 - 9:30 a.m.54 71 ~a ru’a 69 rt/a 12:30- 12:45 p.m.56 3)10:00 - 10:30 a.m.54 82 54 64 80 52 62 12:00 o I2:15 p.m.55 4)10:00- 10:30 a.m.52 70 rda .. rv’a 68 n/a n/a 12:00 o 12:20 p.m.55 h/a = not audible (not measurable) As shown above, the ambient noise levels ranged from 52 to 57 dBA in the morning and 55 to 57 dBA in the early afternoon.. The starting beeps range from 68 to 80 dBA in the nearest neighbor’s rear-yards. The announcement average sound levels under normal operating volume 51 and 52 dBA at the homes to the east b.nd west, respectively. At the homes to the north and south, the announcements are inaudible. Certain words or voice inflections can cause announcement maximum sound levels of up to 58 and 62 dBA at the homes to the east and west, respectively. Homes on the east side of Saratoga Creek will realize an additional 8 dB of reduction from the property line sound levels at their building setback. Announcement sound levels are not considered excessive at adjacent residential dwellings when the sound system is used under normal operating volumes, i.e., with the volume control knob indicator set at "3:00". II.Descriptions of the So.nd Level Meas.rement Methodologies To determine the ambient noise environment at the property lines surrounding the Brookside Swim & Racquet Club, continuous recording of the sound levels were made at a location at each of the property lines to the east, north, west and south, designated herein as Locations 1-4, respectively. The measurements were made using Larson-Davis Model 700 and 812 Precision Integrating. Sound Level Meters, which yield by direct readout the continuous equivalent-energy levels (L,q). The L,q is that level of a steady state noise that has the same sound energy as a time-varying noise. It is often considered the "average" sound leve!. The measurements were made for periods of 15 .to 30 minutes at each location. Longer periods could not be measured due to unstable weather conditions. Please note however, .that the difference between a 15 minute L~ and a 1-hour L,q under average background noise conditions is typically less than 1 dB. Although the City has requested that the measurements be made 25 ft. from the property line, we assume that it was meant to be 25 ft. omside of the Club property line. A difficulty arose as 25 ft. outside of the property was either on private property or in the Saratoga Creek, which at the time, was near full capacity. The ambient fiound levels at the Brookside property lines ranged from 52 to 57 dBA L,q during the 9:00 a.m. recording periods, and 55 to 57 dBA L,q during the 12:30 p.m. recording period. 4 The starting system operational sound levels were measured using a Bmel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter. For each of the measurements at Locations 1-4, the starting system was operated under two scenarios, gcenario 1 was the "beep" ~" the starter, and Scenarios 2 was announcements made by the starting official with the.sourid system amplifier set to normal volume. The starting beep level .is not controlled by the system volume control. As each announcement would take approximately 15 seconds to complete, both average and maximum sound levels were recorded. The City’s requirements specified that the sound levels be recorded 25 ft. from the property line. Along the east property line, this location would have been in Saratoga Creek. Therefore, the sound system was moved back 25 ft. from its normal location to equate the distance requirement. At this location (Location 1), the starting beep was measured at 84 dBA. With the volume control set to its normal operating volume, the announcement was measured at 57 dBA L~q and 64 dBA L~,~.~. The property line fence provides 2 dB of noise reductign, and the increased distance to the east side of the creek provides 4 dB of reduction. The starting beep level is 78 dBA on the east side of the creek. The announcement sound le’;,els on the east side of the creek are 51 dBA L~q and 58 dBA Lm~.~ under normal operating levels. At Location 2 (north property line) the starting beep level was 71 dBA. The announcements were not audible at normal volume. At Location 3 (west property line), the starting beep level was 82 dBA. The announcement levels were 54 and 64 dBA L~q and L~,o.~,, respectively, at normal volume. At Location 4 (south property line), the stariing beep level was 70 dBA. The announcements were not audible at normal operating volume. The above report presents the results of an acoustical analysis of the ambient sound environment and swim race starting system operational sound levels, Brookside Swim & Racquet Club in Saratoga. If you need additional information or weuld like an elaboration of this report, please call me. Sin,cerely EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. /Jeffrey Pack President | ! ! I ! ! ! NOISE10 The Palo Alto YMCA is bounded by residential development on all sides. Homes to the north, south and west back up to the property line. Homes on the east are located across Ross Road. There is a solid wood fence along the western site boundary screening the rear yards of these homes from the site. There is no solid fence along the northern or southern property lines. , Existing noise sources in the area include the sound of aircraft overflights, distaxit tra£fic, local residential activi- ty and activities at the YMCA facility. The major noise sources at the YMCA facility are parking lot activity and sound emanating from the gymxmaium and aerobics room during various activities. A series of noise measurements were conducted around the faci~ty to quantify the noise generated by these var- ious sources. Hourly noise data were collected continuously from 2:00 PM on Friday, March 8, 1991 through noon on Monday, March 11, 1991 at the two locafiom shown on Figure 24. PaSo A~to YMCA Expar~s~ Project Figure 24: Noise Measurement Locations 10 Background infornmtion, analysis of impactx, recommendation of mitigation measva-~ and preparation of graphics for the/Co/re r~ction have been prepared by lllinga~mx’th & Rodkin, Acoustical Enginee~ The measurements were conducted over this period so that nois~ levels could be monitored during times when there was no activity at the YMCA and during times when there was a Inigh level of activity at the YMC.A. For example, a youth basketball tournament took place on Saturday, March 9, between 8:00 A.M and 5:00 During this period of time, there was a great deal of parking lot activity and of nokse generated in.side the gym.11 Detailed results of the long-term noise measurements are shown in Appendix D. A comparison of the noise levels at these locations on Saturday during periods when there was aaivity at the YMCA with corresponding periods on Sunday when there was little or no activity allows several general conclu- sions to be drawn: average noise levels at both locations, increased by up to 3 dBA dur.ing the hours of the basketbaU tournament at the YMCA (a~ersons not familiar with the terminology and fun~lm~ental concepts of environmental acoustics are referred to Appendix D). Noise levels during the.evening use by the Los Amigos dance grbup were not measurably different than before or after. The maximum noise generated by individual events with or without activity at the YMCA were about the same. However, these maximum levels occur more frequently during periods of high activity at the YMCA. To further understand the influence of YMCA activity on the noise environment in the area, the project site was visited on Saturday morning, March 9, 1991. Noise levels were monitored over a period of several hours on the northerly and westerly property lines. During this time, the field technician noted the maximum noise levels generated by various events. The basketball tournament was under way during the morning visit, as was an aerobics das.s. The noise generated in the gym was audible all around the building. The music from the aero- bics class in the main building was not audible at adjacent properties. The data obtained during the attended.monitoring indicate that the highest noise levels in the area are typically generated by aircraft overflights. Both jet and general aviation aircraft activity is considerable in the area. Maximum instantaneous noise levels of 50-60 dBA are typical. The monitoring on the northerly property line showed that the noise generated by activity in the existing parking lot (door slams, voice.s, engines starting, and cars driving by) typically range from 46-57 dBA. During a basketball game at the YMCA, the general noise level generated by activity in the gym was less than 45 dBA. However, the sound of the crowd cheering occa- sionally reached 53 dBA. The windows in the gymnasium and the rear door to the gym were open during the games. Since the background noise level in the area is typically in the range of about 40-44 dBA in the daytime, the sound of the cheering in the gym was clearly audible above the background noise level. Although the maximum noise levels generated by activity at the YMCA were not higher than the maximum noise levels generated byother activity in the area, the duration of this activity did raise the average noise level. The noise measurement conducted at the rear property line showed that.~arklne lot n.oi~ typically ranged from 45-57 dBA. The highest noise levels at this location were generated by activity_ in the g~. The rear door to the gym was open and the sound of the referee’s whistles, air horns, cheering, etc., ranged from 49-59 dBA. Typi- . eal noise levels for such activities were 50-55 dBA. During the game, the sound of the gym noise was dearly audible above the background noise level in the area. This section evaluates the potential for noise impact if the YMCA were to expand as proposed. From an acous- tical perspective, the major components of the expansion are: 11 The r~heduled events st ~he YMCA and fi~ appr~ximat~ number of peop[~ in at~endanc~ during the no~r~ me-asur~m~nz p~riod B sho~a in Appendk~ D. 34 !1 []The parking lot would be expanded and parking spaces would be introduced in areas where there is currently no parking. As part of the expansion, all rooms, including the gym and aerobics room, would be mechanically ventilated so that the doors and windows could be kept closed at all times. Mechanical equipment used for the heati~ ventilating and air conditioning system would be located on the roof of the new building in a "well’. The mechanical equipment for the proposed swimming pools would be located in a fully-enclosed mechanical room behind the auditorium. Because the facility would be expanded, there would be a corresponding increase in the number of users and therefore the number of vehicle trips to and from the facility. The potential noise impacts associated with each of these issues is described below. Noise Assessment Criteria. Policy 11 of the Environmental Resources section of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan states that it is the City’s policy to "ensure compliance with existing noise laws and protec- tion of residence from unnecessary noise". The criteria for impaa assessment used in this study are the limits contained in the Comprehensive Plan and in the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Munidpal Code) and the potential for adverse community response to the noise generated by the project. The Comprehensive Plan contains recommended average day time L10 noise levels for various land uses. An outdoor L10 of 55 dBA is considered superior in residential areas and an outdoor L10 of 65 dBA is considered acceptable. The plan recommends that the L10 noise levels be 10 dBA lower during the evening hours. Section 9.10.040 of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance states, "No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by a~y machine or device, or a~.y combination of same, on commerdal or industrial property, a noise level more than 8 d.B above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane." Section 9.10.020 defines local ambient to be the lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a precidon sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting. In no case shall the local ambient be less than 40 dBA. The data obtained during the noise measurement survey shows that 90 percent of the time, sound levels typically range from 40-44 dBA. Since the lowest sound level to repeat itself would be a sound level exceeded essentially 100 percent of the time, it is probable that this value would be below 40 d.BA and that, for purposes’of ordinance enforcement, 40 dBA would be the applicable criterion. Therefore, accord- ing to the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, noise generated at the YMCA property cannot exceed 48 d.BA (as meas- ured at the property line) without producing a significant impact. In addition to evaluating noise levels agaimt the standards set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance, and in the Comprehensive Plan the potential for adverse community response to the noise generated on the YMCA site is evaluated by comparing the noise generated by activity at the YMCA facility against the back- ground noise level in the surrounding residential area. The technique used to perform this assessment is de.sen’bed in Recommendation R-1966-1971, "Assessment of Noise With Respect to Community Response" prepared by the International SLandards Organization. This technique compares the average sound level gener- ated by the activity of concern with the L90, or background, noise level indigenous to the area. A penalty is assessed to the noise of interest if it contains speech, music, or impulsive components. Since activity at the 75 YMC.A, particularly in the gymnasium, often contains speech, music or impulsive noises~ a 5 decibel penalty as prescri.bcd by the ISO methodology is appropriate. When the penalized average sound level is compared to the background level, the ISO methodology prcdic~ that complaints are to bc expected when the adjusted average ~oise level exceeds the background noise level by 10 dBA or more. A 5 dBA excess is considered to be of marginal significance and only sporadic complaints would be expected. Impact Assessmcn( - Clarrent YMCA Operations. Currently, it appears that noise fi:om activity at the Y’!vICA site occasionally exceeds the level allowed by the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Based 6n measurements con’- ducted at the site, exceedances occur near existing parking spaces along the northerly and southerly property lines and during periods when high noise levels are generated inside the gym and the gym windows and rear door are open. This would occur, for example, during a dance or during a youth basketball game. Although the li.tnits of the ordinance are occasionally exceeded at the property line, it should be noted that there is a solid wood fence approximately 7 feet high between the YMCA property andnearby residences along the western property line. This fence is calculated to reduce _noise from the parking lot to a level which would currently be expected to be below the ordinance limits in the back yards of the homes along the western property line.. Cal- culations show that noise from the ~ would exceed the noise ordinance limit by up to 5 ’dBA even Lf it were applied in the backyard and not at the property line. Noise levels at the adjacent residential properties are currently within the range recommended by the Compre- hensive Plan. The average L10 daytime and evening noise levels are in the "acceptable" to "superior" categories. The L10 noise levels in this area appear to be dominated by aircraft flyover noise. The only influence of activity at the YMCA on the L10 levels was noted during the youth basketball tournament when the L10 at the southern and western property lines increased by about 3 dBA. However, the L10 level remained within the "acceptable" to "superior" range. The noise generated during the basketball games generated an average noise level of about 49 dBA at the rear property line. When penalized for the informational content of the noise, this average level exceeds the typical background noise levels by 10-15 dBA. According to the ISO methodology (which stipulates an increase of about 10 dBA as the likely threshold beyond which neighborhood complaints would be expected), this 10-15 elBA change would be an increase at which complaints would be expected from the from_ the neighborhood. Impact Assessment - Fu~re Noi,~e I_~vels. If the expansion is completed, one of the major noise sources (noise emanating fir0m the gymnasium) would be significantly reduced. The fact that the windows and the door in the gym could remain dosed because the building would be mechanically ventilated would reduce the contribution of tiffs noise source by at least 10 dBA. Noise levels inside the natatorium and in the rest of the building would be similar. At the property lines, noise generated from inside the building would not exceed the limits of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance nor would they contribute an average level which would be expected to generate adverse community response. The mechanical equipment associated with the addition has not been selected. It is, therefore, potentially a source of future noise problems. The equipment would have to be seleaed to meet the limits of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. That is, it could not exceed 48 dBA at the property line. However, because this is primarily a residential area, it would seem more appropriate to control the noise generated by this equipment to not exceed the existing background noise level of 40-44 dBA at the property line. Parking lot noise levels will change. The proposed plan would have parking around all four sides of the build- ing. Parking would be added along the westerly and southerly boundaries where none has previously existed.~ Based on the measurements obtained during the noise monitoring survey, it is. calculated that the introduction 76 NOISE | of the new parking spaces adjacent to the property line would cause the City ordinance limits to be exceeded all along the property line. However, the applicant ha~s proposed a seven:foot solid wood fence around the entire perimeter. This fence, ff constructed and maintained properly, would reduce the noise generated by parking lot activity by about 8 dBA to a level that would (except occasionally) meet the limits set forth in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Typically, the noise generated by car engines starting, cars pulling away, and people talking would be within the ordinance limits. Noise generated by occasional door slams and people shouting would generate maximum noise levels of up to 60 dBA and would ,violate the ordinance limits. The average noise level associated with this activity would not be expected to generate adverse commtmity response. Typical maximum noise levels in the yards adjacent to the northern and southern property lines would be below 48 dBA. Noise levels along the western property line, where there is an existing seven-foot fence, would not be expected to be significantly worse than they are today. The only real change along the westerly property line would be the introduction of staff parking. Since there would be little turnover in these parking spaces, it would not be expected that there would be a significant change in the perceived noise level in the homes backing up to the westerly property llne. Based on the measurements conducted during activity at the YMCA, the parking lot noise does not significantly affect the L10 level. In fact, the only time that the L10 level was significantly increased was when the youth basketball tottmament was under, way at the gym and there was more or less constant noise coming from inside the gym. Since this noise source world be essentially eliminated by dosing up the building, L10 levels will drop during use of the gym. The L10 level would not be expected to increase along the property lines where the new parking spaces would be located. The net effect of the proposed expansion project on nearby residential land uses would be that noise levels should generally be quieter in the area. The sound of the activities in the ~ will be significantly reduced, leaving only the noise generated by the parking lot as a potential factor that could increase local noise. This potential would be mitigated by the proposed seven-foot barrier. Traffic Noise. The expansion would cause an increase in the number of fadlity users on any given day. Using the traffic i~ormation set forth in the Transportation Section of this EIR, the potential increases that would occur on a weekday and a weekend during the hours of peak activity at the fa .c~.’ty have been calculated. Generally, there would be an undeteaable (l.ess than I dB) change in the average noi.(e level along the streets in the area. The only exception would be on Ross Road between Ames and Talismam The average noise level would increase by between 1-2 dedbels during the periods of highest traffic generation. A 1-2 decibel increase in the average traffic noise level is generally impercepta’ble and would not be considered a significant impact. .Construction Nois~. During construction, noise levels in the area will be elevated. The Palo Alto Noise Ordi- manee exempts construction authorized by valid City permits from the standards outlined above. Construction is allowed between the hours of 8:00 -AM and 8:00 pro, Monday through Friday;, 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Sat- urday; and 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Sunday. The only limit on construction activity is that no piece of equip- ment shall emit a noise level in exee~ of 110 dBA measured at a distance of 25 feet. It is not likely that any piece of equipment used on the proposed project site would generate a noise level of this magnitude. Because construction will be taking place so dose to the residential property lines, it is probable that noise would occao sionally interfere with indoor and outdoor activities at adjacent properties. While several design features and operational measures hold the potential to reduce noise impacts from the YMCA below current levels, these steps must be assiduously implemented in order to insure that City stand- ards are not violated. Inclusion of the following measures in the conditions of project approval would reduce ffoten~l impacts below the threshold of significance. Post-mitigation level of significance: Mitigable ,~. Miti~, P_.Lroposed as Part 9f th~ Prgi~gt. The following design measures are included in the p~’oject as proposed: A sound barrier (a seven-foot tall wooden fence) is proposed by the applicant to surround the site on the sides and rear. All onsite buildings would be mechanically ventilated, allowing for windows to remain closed during periods when noise would otherwise emanate from the site. Recommended by this ErR. The following measures are recommended by the noise analysts: The sound barrier proposed by the applicant should run the full length of the northerly, westerly, and southerly property Iine~. The barrier should be constructed of material with a minimum surface weight of 3 lbs./sq, ft. and should have no cracks or gaps in it or at its base. Although a carefully constructed and maintained wood fence could achieve these require- men~ it should be noted that the City has a guideline which encourages use of concrete or masonry barriers for noise reduction purposes when uses in commercial or industrial zone districts are located adjacent to residential districts (§ 18.64.030[B]). Although technically it is not applicable because the YMCA and adjacent uses are all zoned residential, it would seem appropriate to apply this standard. The fence should be clearly shown on the project plans. The sound barrier should be the first element of the expansion project constructed so that it can act to reduce noise generated during the construction proce~, If the barrier height were increased to 8 feet an additional 2 dBA of noise reduction would be provided. The resulting noise levels would not be significantly different than with the proposed barrier. To rnl,lmi~,~-, construction noise, construction should not be allowed on Saturdays or Sundays. Windows and doors in rooms that generally have high noise levels (i.e., the aerobic exzrcise rooms, instructional pool, natatorium and gym) should remain closed while in use. Signs should be posted in the rooms that say "Keep doors and windows dosed’. The meeha~eal equipment associated with the fadlity should be designed and specified so that when all mechanical equipment is operating, noise levels do not exceed 40 d.BA at property lines. This will ensure that noise levels do not exceed the exiting background noise level in the area. 78 NOISE To minimize construction noise impacts, the City should designate the Code Compliance Inspector to receive and to respond to complaints from neighbors of the site. The construc- tion project manager will be directly accountable to the Code Compliance Inspector. Be- cause complaints are often correlated with construction starting too early, unusually noisy equipment, or unease on the part of the neighborhood as to how long an activity is going to last, these impacts can often be satisfactorily resolved through communication between the complainant and a representative of the construction team. The name and phone number of the Code Compliance Inspector and the constrdction project manager should be clearly posted on the construction site¯ | al Introduction. Local and regional air quality impacts are of concern for the San Francisco Bay Area since the entire region is a non-attainment area for ozone and urbanized areas within the region are non-attainment areas for carbon monoxide. The construction period impacts of fugitive dust emissions axe often of even greater concern to nearby properties. The following analysis considers whether there would be any significant traffic-related air pollution impacts and evaluates the potential severity of dust generated during the construction period. Past and Ctu-rent Air, Quidi~y. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a net- work of permanent air quality monitoring ritesthroughout the Bay Area. Although none are located in Palo Alto, several are located on the Peninsula and allow characterization of air quality for regional pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide and suspended particulates. The District operates comprehensive monitoring sites measuring both gaseous and particulate pollutants in San Francisco, Redwood City and Mountain View. Data from the BAAQMD air quality monitoring sites show that, of the gaseous pollutants (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide), only ozone represents a problem along the Peninsula. Data collected in Redwood City indicate a downward trend in ozone in recent years. Despite population and traffic increases, controls on sta- tionary sources and vehicles have brought continuous, slow reductions in emissions of ozone precursors since the early 1970s, resulting in a gradual improvement ha ozone air quality. Suspeuded particulates (PM-10) are airborne particles of less than 10 microns in diameter that have the poten- tial to cause an increased risk of respiratory disease with long exposure. A major source of this pollutant is construction activity. Carbon monoxide is a non-reactive, localized pollutant that has different characteristics from the pollutants discussed above. It is most pervasive during cold, calm winter evenings when ground based inversions are present. ¯ n P ri Im . Construction air quality impacts would result from dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust is emitted both during construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing and earflamoving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate significant dust emissions. 79 FUNDAMEN~f’AL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound lfivels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 1. Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Typical A-levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table 2 for different types of noise. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmenta! noise, the statistical noise descriptors, Llo, Lso, and I-so, are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 10%, 50 %, and 90 % of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the L~ is now also widely used. The L~ is the average A-weighted noise level during a statezt period of time. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human (A-l) sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, L,~ (day/night average sound level), was developed. The L,~ divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and the nighttime of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The C.ommunity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24- hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime .weighting. ,. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three genera! categories: 0 0 0 subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning physiological effects such as startling, hearing loss The levels associated with environmental noise, in almost every case, produce effects only in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. Unfortunately, there is as yet no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance, and habituation to noise over differing individual past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called "ambient". In genera.l, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by the hearers. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this report. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. (A-2) TABLE 1 DEFINITIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS II il | TERM Decibel, dB Frequency, Hz A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA Equivalent Noise Level, L~ Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Day/Night Noise Level, L,~ Ambient Noise Level Intrusive DEFINITION A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference,pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 01%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to levels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. The ayerage A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. (A-3) TABLE 2 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY At a Given Distance From Noise Source Civil Defense Siren (100’) Jet Takeoff (200’) A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels 140 130 120 Noise Environments Subjective Impression Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Pile Driver (50’) ¯ Ambulance Siren (100’) Freight Cars (50’) Pneumatic Drill (50’) Freeway (100’) Vacuum Cleaner (10’) Department Store Light Traffic (100’) Large Transformer (200’) Soft Whisper (5’) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Boiler Room Printing Press Plant In Kitchen with Garbage Disposa! Running Data Processing Center Private Business Office Quiet Bedroom Recording Studio Very Loud Moderately Loud Quiet Threshold of Hearing (A-4) TABLE B-! on Long-Term Measurements Measurement Site A Telephone Pole at the Northern Side Property Line, ii Ft. Above Grade, 185 Ft. From the Centerline of Ross Rd. Date ITimeDuratioh Leq L012 L10 Ls0 L90 Friday March 8, 1991 Saturday March 9, 1991 2:00 pm 1 hour 50 60 52 48 46 3:00 pm 1 hour 50 60 52 48 46 4:00 pm 1 hour 50 58 54 49 46 5:00 pm 1 hour 51 59 54 49 0~7 6:00 pm 1 hour 51 59 54 50 48 7:00 pm 1 hour 52 60 54 50 48 8:00 pm 1 hour 51 58 53 50 48 9:00 pm 1 hour 53 62 55 51 49 i0:00 pm 1 hour 54 60 56 52 50 ii:00 pm 1 hour 54 60 56 54 50 Ldn = 57 dB Midnight i:00 am 2:00 am 3:00 am 4:00 am 5:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am i0:00 am i!:00 am 12:00 pm I:00 pm 2:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm 1 hour 52 56 54 52 50 1 hour 51 60 53 50 47 1 hour 48 52 50 48 46 1 hour 48 54 -50 47 44 1 hour 47 52 50 46 44 ! hour 47 52 49 46 44 1 hour 51 58 54 50 48 1 hour 52 60 54 52 50 1 hour 54 61 56 52 48 1 hour 54 64 56 51 48 1 hour 56 64 59 52 50 1 hour 52 60 54 51 49 1 hour 54 64 56 51 48 1 hour 52 58 54 50 48 1 hour 52 62 54 50 48 1 hour 52 59 53 51 49 1 hour 52 61 54 50 48 1 hour 52 59 54 50 48 1 hour 52 60 55 49 47 1 hour 50 58 52 48 46 1 hour 48 56 49 46 44 i L~ -- The average A-weighted noise Level during the measurement period. =Lo,, L,o, Lso, L~ -- The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded during the measurement period 01, 10, 50 and 90 percent: of the time, respectively. L~, (Day/Night Sound Level) -- A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the 24-hour average A-weighted noise level. Sound levels during the hours frown 10:00 pm to 7:00 am are penalized 10 dB to account for the increased sensitivity of people during the nighttime hours. Table B-I Date Saturday March 9, (cont’d) Sunday March i0, Monday March ii, (cont’d) Time Duration L~I L012 L~0 Ls0 Lg0 1991 1991 1991 9:00 pm i0:00 pm ii:00 pm Midnight I:00 am 2:00 am 3:00 am 4:00 am 5:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am I0:00 am ii:00 am 12:00 pm i:00 pm 2:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm 9:00 pm i0:00 pm Ii:00 pm Mi’dnight i:00 am 2:00 am 3:00 am 4:00 am 5:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am i0:00 am ii:00 am 1 hour 47 54 49 46 1 hour 1 hour 51 58 54 49 Ldn3 = 55 dB 44 44 46 hour 48 53 50 48 46 hour 46 58 48 42 38 hour 42 48 46 42 38 hour 47 56 48 46 44 hour 45 49 46 45 44 hour 46 52 48 46 44 hour 50 58 52 49 47 hour 51 58 53 50 48 hour 51 61 53 48 46 hour 52 62 54 50 48 hour 52 59 54 50 49 hour 54 64 56 52 49 hour 58 68 60 55 50 hour 52 60 54 50 48 hour 50 60 52 48 46 hour 53 64 55 50 46 hour 51 60 53 -48 46 hour 51 6,0 54 .48 46 hour 50 60 52 48 47 hour 50 60 52 48 46 hour 50 58 52 48 46 hour 50 56 52 48 47 hour 50 58 53 48 44 hour 48 56 50 46 44 = 55 dB 1 hour 44 52 46 43 41 1 hour 42 48 44 42 40 1 hour 42 48 44 41 40 1 hour 41 46 43 40 39 1 hour 46 58 47 43 40 1 hour 49 54 51 48 45 1 hour 54 64 56 52 50 1 hour 53 59 56 52 50 1 hour 54 63 58 52 49 1 hour 55 66 58 50 48 1 hour 55 67 57 50 48 1 hour 55 69 54 50 48 On TABLE B-2 Measurement Site B a Tree at the Western (Rear) Property Line, Ft.Above Grade, 6 Ft. From Western Fence and 45 Ft. From Southern (Side) Fence Date ITimeDuratiqn L~ L012 L10 Ls0 Lg0 ! ! Friday March 8, 1991 Saturday March 9, 1991 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 i0:00 ii:00 pm 1 hour 48 72 58 48 45 pm 1 hour 48 60 49 45 43 pm 1 hour 46 57 49 44 42 pm 1 hour 46 56 48 45 43 pm 1 hour 49 56 52 47 45 pm 1 hour 47 56 49 45 44 pm 1 hour 47 54 49 46 44 pm 1 hour 50 59 52 48 44 pm 1 hour 51 56 54 50 48 pm 1 hour 52 59 54 52 48 Ldn3 = 55 dB Midnight i:00 am 2:00 am 3:00 am 4:00 am 5:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am i0:00 am ii:00 am 12:00 pm I:00 pm 2:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm 9:00 pm 1 hour 50 54 52 50 48 1 hour 48 56 51 4.7 44 1 hour 46 51 48 46 44 1 hour 46 53 48 45 42 1 hour 44 51 46 44 42 1 hour 44 50 46 44 42 1 hour 46 51 4-8 45 44 1 hour 49 54 52 48 46 1 hour 48 57 50 46 44 1 hour 50 59 52 47 44 1 hour 48 56 51 47 45 1 hour 49 54 50 48 46 1 hour 50 62 52 47 44 1 hour 48 56 50 46 44 1 hour 49 60 50 46 44 1 hour 48 57 51 48 44 1 hour 49 59 52 46 44 1 hour 46 56 48 44 42 1 hour 48 56 52 45 42 1 hour 45 53 48 44 42 1 hour 42 50 44 40 40 1 hour 42 50 44 41 40 ~ L~ -- The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. 2 Lo~, L~o, Lso, LQ° .- The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded during the measurement period 01, 10, 50 and 90 percent of the time, respectively. 3 Ld" (Day/Night Sound Level) -- A descriptor established by the U.S. Enviror~nental Protection Agency (EPA) for the 2G-hour average A-weighted noise level. Sound levels during the hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am are penalized 10 dB to account for the increased sensitivity of people during the nighttime hours. Table B-2 (cont’d) Date Time Duration L~I L012 L~0 Ls0 Lg0 Saturday March 9, 1991 (cont’d) Sunday March i0, 1991 Monday March ii, 1991 i0:00 pm ii:00 pm Midnight i:00 am 2:00 am 3:00 am 4:00 am 5:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am i0:00 am Ii:00 am 12:00 pm l:00.pm 2:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm 9:00 pm i0:00 pm ii:00 pm Midnight i:00 am 2:00 am 3:00 am 4:00 am 5:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am i0:00 am ii:00 am hour 44 48 46 44 42 hour 47 52 50j~46 44 = 51 dB , hour 46 51 48 46 43 hour 42 54 44 39 36 hour 40 46 42 39 36 hour 44 54 46 42 40 hour 42 46 44 42 40 hour 43 49 45 42 41 hour 46 52 47 45 44 hour 46 52 47 44 43 hour 48 59 50 44 43 hour 49 60 50 47 44 hour 50 58 52 48 46 hour 50 58 52 46 44 hour 54 65 56 51 45 hour 45 52 46 44 42 hour 45 56 48 42 40 hour 50 62 52 44 40 hour 49 60 50 44 42 hour 48 58 50 44 42 hour 46 56 48 44 43 hour 47 58 48 44 43 hour 46 55 48 44 42 hour 46 52 48 44 43 hour 46 54 48 44 42 hour 44 53 45 42 40 = 51 dB 1 hour 41 48 42 40 38 1 hour 40 46 41 38 37 1 hour 38 44 40 38 36 1 hour 38 42 40 38 36 1 hour 42 54 44 40 38 1 hour 46 50 48 46 42 1 hour 50 60 51 48 46 1 hour 49 56 51 48 47 1 hour 49 58 52 47 44 1 hour 50 60 52 46 44 1 hour 50 70 56 48 45 1 hour 50 76 74 68 61 TABLE B-3 Short-Term Measurements Location i:At the northern property line, 135 ft. from the gym, 5-1/2 ft. above grade near measurement site A. Date Time Duration L~ L01 L10 Ls0 Lg0 3/9/91 Note: 11:28 am 15 min. Gym noise 45-53 dBA Parking lot noise 45-57 dBA 48 55 50 48 46 Location 2:At the western property line directly opposite the rear door of the existing gym, 5-1/2 ft. above grade and 138 ft. from the rear of the gym near measurement site B. Date Time Duration L~ L01 L10 LS0 Lg0 3/9/91 Note: 11:48 am 15 min. Gym noise 48-59 dBA Parking lot noise 45-57 dBA 50 56 52 48 46 CHAtrFER VI REPORT PREPARATION EIR CONTRIBUTORS City of Palo Alto. (Lead Agency) Department of Planning and Community Environment ,.. 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Coordinator: Lori Topley, Planner Contributors: Nancy Lyt_le, Zoning Administrator Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment EIR Consultant Mundie & Associates Consultants in Land Use and Economics 3452 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94118 Coordinator: David R. Clore, AICP, Senior Assodate Contributors: Roberta M. Mundie, AICP, President Deborah Leland, Research Associate Technical Consultants to the EIR Consultant Transportation: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. i00 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, CA 951L3 Coordinator: Jane Bierstedt Contributors: Lisa McLellan Jean Follette Noise ¯ Illingworth & Rodkin 85 Bollnas Road, #11 Farigax, CA 49430 Coordinator: Rich Illlngworth Contributors: Fred Svinth Tassos Papadimos 1 ! 1 l 1 OTHER PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED Charles Borg Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Lymae Johnson Police Department City of Palo Alto Karen Cart Recreation Department City of Palo Alto Naphtali H. Knox Naphtali H. Knox & Assodates, Inc. Consultant to YMCA of the Mid-Peninsula Ann Cribbs Recreation Department City of Palo Alto Bill Leddy Tanner Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects Project Architects W.F. Carhen Division Engineer Santa Clara Valley Water District Gayle Likens Transportation Division City of Palo Alto 113 Dave Sandage Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Steve Mangan Utilities Department City of Palo Alto Tracy Palmer Staft Member Page Mill Center YMCA Dick Russell Maxlager Eichler Swim & Teanis Club Carl Stoffel Transportation Division City of Palo Alto Barry Taylor Preside/at YMCA of the Mid-Penlnsula Joe Teresi Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Roger Wilder Principal palo Verde Elementary School 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Air Quality and Urban Development Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects and Plans. 1985. ¯ Air Quality and Urban Development Guidelines forAssessing Impacts of Projects and Plans. 1985. Kipplng, Ted, Tree Shaper. Letter to E’mery Rogers & Associates regarding condition of trees at YMC_~ property at 3412 Ross Road, Palo Alto. October 18, 1990. Medurski, T. Carbon Mon .~de Hot Spot Guidelines, Volume IIL" Workbook, EPA - 450/3-78-03S. 1978. Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995. February 2, 1981 (including amendments through July 1990). ¯ Informational Memorandum - Architectural Review Board [prepared forpreliminary review ofpro- posedprojec; 90-ARB-175]. January 17, 1991 ¯Minutes from Architectural Review Board meeting of.tanuary 17, 1991. ¯ InterofJice Memorandum titled Review of YMCA Submittal of October 30, 1990, prepared by Carl Stoffel, Traffic Engineer. November 16, 1990. Memorandum to Sarah Cheney from Gaffe Likens on bike parking. November 16, 1990. Memorandum to Lori 7bpley from Gaffe Likens on School District Liaison. February 21, 1991. Municipal Code, Chapter 1&83, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. Municipal Code, Chapter 1&90.060, Conditional Use Permit - Findings and Conditions. Municipal Code, Chapter 9.10, Noise. Municipal Code, Chapter 18.12, R-1 Single Family Residence Distn’ct Regulations. Rogers, Emery and Associates, Landscape Architects. Palo Alto YMCA Recommended Program for gaisting Trees. 22 October 1990. Tanner, Leddy, Maymm, Staey - Architects. Letter to Loft Topley, Planner, City of Palo Alto from W’flliam Leddy, AIA. December 18, 1990. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Mode~ Report FHWA-RD-77-108. 1978. YMCA of the Mid-Peninsula. Letter to Nancy Lytle, Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto from Ronald R. Markillie, Project Coordinator, YMCA of the Mid-Petthasula. October 30, 1990. I I 115 Jl,~e 18, 1993 MarilynRiley Palo Alto YMCA 4151 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 SUBJECT: The Palo Alto YMCA Expansion -- Acoustical onsulting Dear Ms. Riley: This letter is to respond to three points raised at the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board meeting on May 6,. 1993. (1) (2) The proposed 8-foot high Fenstone Pre-engineered Wall Systamwill provide the noise reduction required by the EIR. ’.: ..... . .... ~ ..’ .... the Natatorium will be’essentiallyinaudible to the neighbors. The sound levels’generated’by people’ engaged in normal conversation in this area would generate a sound level of about 20 to 30 dBA In the nearest adjacsnt yard. This is below the background sound level in the area and would not be expected to be even audible. The sound of children playing in a play yard in front of the building facing Ross Road could occasionally be audible outside of the first couple of residences back from Ross Road. Sound levels generated’ by children yelliDg ~ould reach 55 dBA in adjacent yards. Sound levels would be significantly lower at the yards ~urther from Ross Road due to the shielding provided by the YMCA building. Outside of the occasional shout, general noise levels associated with play activity would not be expectgd to be more than barely audible outside of the nearest properties. -Noise levels in the front yards of the homes directly opposite the play yard across Ross Road could reach 63 dBAwhen children are yelling. The noise level due to general play activity in the yards would be I0 to 20 dBA.lower. The noise levels from the shouting would ba typical of the noise, levels ~enerated ~y. vehicles passing. by on Ross Road. Inthe backyards of thehomes across Ross Road, the maximum noise levels generated by children yelling would be about 48 dBA. Even the noise of children 85 Bofinas Road, #11 ¯Fairfax, Cafifornia 94930 . (415)459.5507 , FAX (415)459.6448 Marilyn Riley J~n~ iS, 1993 Page 2 yelling would Just barely be audible.above the background noise level in this area. &incethis activity ~ould onlyt~ke place in the daytime, we would not expect anysignificant adverse impact. , RRI : gfl (93-027) City of Palo Alto Departmey. tofPlanningand Community Environment Application No. 92-UP-26: 600 COLORADO AVENUE Use Permit 92-UP-26 is hereby issued for the redesign and consolidation of an existing 27,260-square-foot church facility (Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church), currently located on two parcels measuring 5.44 acres, into a 24,660-square-foot church facility on a 2.745-acre site, lhcluding two single-family residences and modifications to the circul~tion and parking, as per attached plans, at 600 Colorado Avenue, Zone District R-l, Palo Alto, California, and is subject to conditions listed below. Planning Division CONDITIONS All exterior modifications including, but not limited to, buildings, parking lots, landscaping, fencingand signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board (except as provided in condition 19). Prior to application for a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan to the Planning Division, which eliminates the vehicle drop--off on Colorado A~enue and the 1,250- square-foot future addition. All calculations shall be revised to reflect this revision. A portion of the Colorado Avenue frontage may be designated as a passenger loading zone. The proposed loading zone shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division. The applicant shall appoint a neighborhood liaison (responsible party or parties) who may be contacted by the neighbors during all hours of operation and during special events to voice complaints about noise violations and other disturbances at Saint Mark’s Church. This liaison shall be.available to receive complaints at any time the facility is being used or operated. The person will be provided.the authority to correct any violation of the use permit conditions, and to provide every effort to avoid disturbances to the neighborhood. Any changes, in the names, phone numbers and duty of the neighborhood liaison shall be provided to .the neighborhood representative and the Zoning Administrator immediately. The Church shall schedule regular meetings with the neighborhood, the first to begin six months after occupancy, and annually thereafter, to review the status of compliance with the terms of the use permit, the status of noise and disturbance control, and the status of neighborhood, relations. Advanced notice of these regular meetings will be provided to the Zoning Administrator in order to allow attendance. A follow-up report on neighborhood relations shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator and neighborhood representative following these meetings, outlining the status of issues discussed at the meeting and measures taken for the relationship. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415.329.2240Fax Q o 10. 11. 12. Except as allowed in condition 17, Church facilities shall be limited to Church-sponsored or Church-related events and operations including, but not limited to, community counseling and support services. Lease, donation or rental of any facility, including living units, to any non-church related or community service operation shall, be prohibited, except pursuant to the issuance of a separate conditional use permit. The two on-site, single-family residences shall be inhabited only by Church employees, clergy and their guests and families. All regularly scheduled church operations including worship, meetings, .and community services, with the exception of temporary overnight housing (Urban Ministry pursuant to a valid temporary use permit), office work or other activities involving six or fewer persons and special events, shall be prohibited from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. all other days. The Church may hold 12 special events per calendar year which may exceed the time limits stated above. The Zoning Administrator and neighborhood representative shall be provided a biannual schedule of such special events and their expected duration. Any change in the schedule shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and neighborhood representative a minimum of 30 days prior to the event. The Church shall not conduct, sponsor, or in any way allow the main church, chapel and education building to be used simultaneously for church programs or community services in ~ manner which exceeds the parking capacity of the site., Use of any. two of these buildings in combination withother church facilities is permitted. The Church shall make every effort to educate parishioners and guests to park on-site and reduce noise whenever possible. The Church shall preserve the link between the property and Hoover Park by maintaining at least one gate, accessible from either side, in ~he rear fence. The applicant shall provide a dense, vegetative buffer pursuant to Section IB.83.100(f), and a 7-foot-high acoustical wall along each side of the property line. The wall shall be constructed on each side property line, starting 16 feet from the front property line and ending at the rear property line. The materials and design of the wall shall be subject to Architectural Review Board approval~ The Church will install one sign, acceptable to the Architectural Review Board and the Transportation Division, at each of the driveway entrances. These signs shall notify users that parking is for Saint Mark’s Church. UP9226.JC nl/dsk 10119/92 Page 2 13.All Church operations shall comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. 14.On-site parking shall be provided for no fewer than 152 automobiles. 15.If (a) the project roadway is less than 50 feet from a road bump, and/or (b) a new project driveway is less than 5 feet from a road bump, the applicant shall be responsible for removingl~he existing road bump and related signing ’and striping, and installing a new road bump, including signing and striping, at.the’closest feasible location, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division, at the applicant’s expense. Required relocation of road bumps and related signing and striping shall be completed prior to finalization of the building permit. 16.Prior to demolition of existing off-street parking facilities, the applicant shall install all required parking or temporary parking acceptable to the City in a manner that is fully accessible and functional. 17.The Church may allow organized sports groups to use their parking facility at times not conflicting with church functions which require the parking. 18.Within 30 days of approval of the use permit, the applicant shall provide satisfactory written evidence of its acceptance, approval of an agreement not to challenge the enforceabil~ty of each term and condition of this permit. In the event the applicant fails to provide such written evidence, this permit shall be null and void. 19.Demolition ofthe existing Sexton’s quarters, the existing A and B classroom buildings and the existing rummage shed, and installation of temporary parking may proceed without review and approval of the Architectural Review Board as long as a 7-foot-high fence (acceptable to the Zoning Administrator} is.installed along the east property line prior to the start of demolition. 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 the 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 (1) year after the date of granting becomes 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. UP9226.JC nl/dsk 10/19/92 Page 3 Pursuant to Resolution No. 5672 of the City of Palo Alto, the time limit for judicial review of this decision is 90 days as set forth in section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures. Sincerely, NANC~MADDOX LYTLE Chief Planning Official , October 19, 1992 UP9226oJC nl/dsk 10/19/92 Page 4 P. O. |Ox 10250 FALO ALTO. CAUFORNIA 9431)3 Application No. 90-UP-38: Use Pen~it 90-UP-38 is hereby issued for a maximum 25,000 square foot expansion of the existing YHCA comuntty center use, includ|ng the addition of two indoor swtming pools, new locker facilities, exercise roo~, meeting rooms, offices and storage areas, as per attached plans dated October 28, 1991, at 3412 Ross Road, Zone District R-], Palo Alto, California, and ts subject to’ conditions listed below. GENERAL The applicant shall appoint a neighborhood ltatson~ilLO.~J~~db_b#_ ~of the project site ~ 1~] ~o~and~du~lng spe~l ~vents to- voice compl~i-n-t~ about noise violations, parktng concerns or any other disturbances originating at the YHCAfactltty. The liaison shall be provided the a~t_~_ocorrect any vtalatton of the~use penait conditions and to make every effo*~--t~avo-~d~~nces to the neighborhood. The na~e-and phone number, and any changes thereto, of the liaison shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator so that the City has continuous notice of the identity of the liaison. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Permit) The applicant shall schedule ~~s ~ith the n~et~d, a minimum of one every six months, to review the ~E’dso~F~~~tth the ter~s of the use permit, the status of noise and disturbance control and the status of neighborhood relations. Advance notice of these regular~ meetings shall be provided to ti~e Zoning Adaintstrator in order to allo~ attendance by a City representative. Following the first year of semi- annual meetings, the meetings Bay be held once yearly, wtth the consent of the neighbors. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Penntt) ~The shall c~tton monitoring andapplicant~preparatton ~ a ~ttten operattons.status~~~~s~reparatton of the report by a land use consultant chosen from the City’s ltst of qualified consultants. The YHCA~st funds covering the costs, of report preparation, not to exce~or each report, tn accordance ~tth the Department of Planning and Co~untty Environment’s ~dopted guidelines for technical consultant contracts, This ~mount BW be increased annually based on the Consumer Price (ndex (all urban consumers, base years 1982-1984-]00, for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose CHSA, published by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics). The contents of the report shall include, ~:\uPgo38.lt P~e I - documentation o_.!_~neighbo__..._.~~ o results of t~e regularly scheduled netghbo~hoodt_..~.~.~9~; o the status of~with all Conditions of approval and the City Municipal Code; recommendations for any necessary code compliance efforts; - traffi.._..___._.c ~ on Ross Road and at the project driveways. Each report shall be~.~se_~nted to e sston for review at anoticed public hearing to be held each year follo~-Tng the date of execution of the use pemtt. The Planning Comtsston may, at any tt~e, delegate review of all subsequent reports to the Zoning Administrator. Thereafter, the Zoning Administrator may refe~ any repo~ to the Planning Co~ission as he/she detemtnes necessaw. At the hearing, if the Co.lesion or Zoning Administrator finds that the conditions of the use pe~tt are not being co.lied with o~ that tn) the ~udge~nt of the Co.lesion or Zontng Administrator, substantial evidence indicates that the use granted by this pe~tt ts being conducted tn a~nner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, the C~isston or Zoning Admtntstrator~ay reco~end~the City Counct] that the Should reports prepared in three consecutive years indicate a reasonable record of compliance, the reports may be su~ttted hi-annually, or even less frequently at the discretion of the Planning Comisston,6r Zoning Administrator. The Planning Co~tsston or Zoning Administrator may increase the frequency of the reports at any time. Reporting shall in no case be less frequent than evew three years. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Per~tt) ~~Hours of ope~att_~" for all YMCA activities and special events shall be Iimite~-l~llowso No la~je-group evening dance program, such as the currently operating Los A~tgos program, shall be allowed. This restriction shal! not apply to small dance classes held as a non~al part of scheduled YMCA classes. ~_~ Sunday:Monday through Friday: Saturday: 9:00 am to lO:O0 pm 6:15 am to 10:00 pm 7:00 am to 10:00 pm (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Permit) All YMCA classes shall be withprogramsandscheduledtoavotd ~ e~~~1 ~times. YMCA classes shall not begtn.o~end less~anfifteen minutes prior to the start of school or fifteen mnutes following the finish of school, taking into account all variations of the daily school schedule, The YMCA shall meet annually with local school administrators and, if necessary, adjust the YHCA program schedule. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Permit| (~No which will exceed the the parking lot shall beevent(s)C~ ~aV o~f allowed. A e t s a be set aside in the 1~ to display the conditions of approval .tndtcated.bel’ow, th~-YMCA~-Good HeJghbor Policy and other infomatton intended to info~ the users of the restrictions ~tthtn ~hlch the YHCA must operate and t~ sol tctt their cooperation. ~e ~ollo~Jng conditions sh~11 be dJspla~ed: 1.1 through 1.7, 2.1, 3.4 through 3.8, 4.4 through 4.6, and 6.). (Condtt.ton’Effecttve Upon Execution of Use Pemtt) 1.8 Should a condition monitoring fee be adopted by the Ctty to ~l.]ow the Ctty to recover the costs of condition monitoring, the YHCA shall be subject to the fee. TRANSPORTATION (~A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program outlining efforts to be made by the YHCA t?" reduce vehtcle trips to~Elze~ shall besubmitted for review "and a~oval by the Planntng and Transportation Divisions prior to occupancy of the new addition. The program shall provide for, at minimum, the following: -measures to be undertaken to incre usbtcycle use~ ublic trans ortation and shu , - the preparation of a us.q~1~_~.~C_~!X, to determine the travel patterns of users to and from the facility and the feasibillty of providing shuttle service or assisting in the organization of carpools from certain identified locations; - an aggressive member tnfo~mat~advts|ngmembers.of the need to reduc~ aut-O-IPl~p~_to~d encouraging the use o~publtc transit,"-b-i~eS,-~Ppo~, etc. The member information program shall provide for a permanent information display in an area visible to all members, preferably in the lobby. The program shall be updated and reviewed in conjunction with the condition monitoring and operations status report required in Condition 1.3. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Permit) e 3.1 3.2 PARKINGAN__~_~p_~..~_~ Deleted. A minimum of 206 parking spaces shall be constructed at the time of project development, and a total of 248 spaces, including those to be held &:\UPgO38.~& tn landscape reserve, shall be indicated on the ftnal plans approved by the Arch|tectural Review Board. 3.3 Conversion of the some or all of the landscape reserve tO parktng m~y be required by the Planning Coazatsston or Zoning Adm|ntstrator, should the need for additional parking be Indicated by the condition ~onttortng and operations status report required by Condition 1.3. in t the spaces located alon9 the rear pro err ltne. " -~ 3.5 To provide safe sight distances for drivers of vehicles exiting the site, wtthtn the "sight dtstance triangle" area (as specifically def]ned by the Transportation Division) of the exJttng driveways, no landscaping (with the exception of existing trees to be retained), stgns (with the exception of those Identified in Condition 3.7), bergs or other obstacles exceeding three feet in height shall be allowed. Landscaping species planted within th|s area are 11mtted to..thos’e which have a maxtmum untrimmed natural growth height of three feet. (~~On-street parktn9 shall be prohtbttdd wtLh|n 60 feet on etther side ofeach extttng driveway. ]he applicant shall obtaln the appropriate approvals from the Transportation Division to paint the cur~.sred in theseareas, 3.7 Stop signs shall be installed at both exit driveways. Add|ttonal stgnage shall be placed at the exits reminding patrons to watch for pedestrians and to drive slowly and safely. The type, size and locat|on of signage shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Transportation Divisions to ensure a mintmum of interference wtth visibility for exiting drivers. 3.8 The existing rolled curb on Ross Road shall be replaced utth a vertical curb, on the YHCA side of the street, between the proper~y lines of the YHCA. Design and construction of the vert|cal curb shall be as approved by the Public Works Department. B~cycle D~rkinq. shall be provided as requtred by the bicycle parking or~nce provisions which are currently under review by the. City and anticipated to be adopted wtthtn the next 6 months. No deferral of spaces shall be allowed. The location of the bicycle parking spaces shall be subject to the approval of the Transportation Division. 3.10 DeleLedo (~Rad.~2~p~shall be installed in the vicinity of the exit driveways on the YHCAstte for the purpose of slowing exiting vehicles. The bumps shall be 3-inches high, 12-feet long in the direction of vehicle travel, and located in a posttion approved by the Transportation D~vision. a:\UPgO38.1t P~g¢ 4 11/25/91 (~Ove~.~ntght bus park.tn, shall rohibited at the site. Bus storage shalle~vecl to a .sult.aole iocaT.lon’" ou~s~oe of a residential neighborhood, (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Perk|t) 4.1 A sound .barrier shall be constructed along the full length of the northerly, westerly and southerly property lines. The barrier shall beconstructed to a height of 7 ~ee~, unless = m~o~J~ o~ p~ope~ o~e~s on any boundary indicate tn ~ttlng that 8 feet ts p~efe~red, and of concrete or masonry material.. If a ma~o~tty of all a~cent p~ope~ty o~ers tndtc~te tn.~tttng a preference for ~ood rather than concrete or m~sonw, the Zontng Admlntstrato~ may constder allo~1ng such ~ change. ~y b~r~te~ constructed shall ~ of a ~aterlal ~tth a ~tnt~ surface ~eight of 3 lbs. pe~ square foot, and shall have no cracks or g~ps ~t ~ts base. The notse barrier shall be ¢atntain~ tn good aesthetic condition and~.tn such ~ manner as to not reduce tts soundproperttes. 4.2 Hechanical ventilation shall be provided for the entire building, including existing areas. " 4.3 All mechanical equipment associated with the factl|ty shall be designed and specified so that ~hen a11 mechanical equipment is operating, noise levels do not exceed 40 dBA at the property lines. A statement from a licensed noise engineer attesting to the noise properties of the equipment shall be provided prior to issuance of a butldtng pen~it for equipment installation. (~.’~L~Nindows in rooms which generate noise, including the g)~nnas!~,natatorium, and aerobics roo~, shall be fitted ~Ith key locks to prewnt being opened by YMCA patrons. The ~dows ~ay ~nly ~ o~~ ~si~~l~t~ ~h~ neighborhoo~ ~ ~n absol~tel~ ~s~ch as during a ~alfunctlon of the ~chanlcal ve~i"iatlng equipment. Th~ situation which causes the need for open ~Indows and ext~lo~ doors shall be remedied as soon as reasonably possible. .~ The YHCA shall at all’times operat) tn com H~nce~ __~ ~otseO~dinance (Chapter 9.10 of the ~un~ct~~ion E~iecttve Upon Execu~ of Use Pe~lt) ~All.~~s rohtbtted. (Condition E~fecttve UponExecu . 5. AESTHETICS AND LAN~ 5.1 Final plans for the project’s design, landscaping and lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. ~:\U P9038.~P~g¢ 5 I IF25~I (~All ltghttng shall confon, to City standards. Freestanding light fixtures are ltmtted to twelve feet in height, however, the Architectural Revt~ Board should constder reduclng the height of f~ures to the l~est level possible ~11e st111 maintaining security. Al1 11ghttng must be destgn~ and locaL~ tn such a ~e 1~~ !nLo ad acentproperties. All l~ghL f~x~u~es s ~ adequate ~o~ Lhetr purpose. All 11~hLs whtch ~ . vtstble ~ro~nL prope~L~lll" be turned o~ wtLh~n 30 ~tnuLes ~A maintenance sh~ to provide ~eekl~ ptc~up1 andscape compan~ ~~e~ ~nd" o~h~~ de--rid prope~ maintenance of all stte landscaping. ~ ~h~t such maintenance settees have been contracted for shall ~ provtded to ~he Planning Division p~to~ to issuance of a building pemtt ~o~ the addition. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Pe~tt) A \dense 1 _ " _ consisting of a combination of trees and s~ll be provided along the rear and side properly 1tries. Trees should exist or be planted at a ratio of not less than one tree per three hundred square feet of the landscape screen. All existing trees to be removed shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of three new trees for every one which is removed. Replacement trees shall be a mix of mostly five and fifteen gallon size, wtth some twenty-four inch box size also included. These calculations shall be shown on the landscape plan submitted for ARB approval. 5.5 All steps to ensure the health and aesthetic qualtty of extsttng trees to be retained, as indicated in the "Recommended.Program for Existing Trees" prepared by the project landscape architect and dated October 22, 1990, shall be followed. A detailed tree protection program, prepared by a certified arbortst, for all site trees to be retained shall be submitted with the final landscape plan, including measures to protect property line trees during construction of the noise barrier. The final landscape plan shall meet the City’s adopted Drought Tolerant Landscape Guidelines for selection of plant materials and irrigation components. 5.7 5.8 The proposed parking and circulation plan shall be modified to ensure retention of the two ash trees located in the existing rear parking area. If retention of any of the Cedar trees in the northern front corner of the site would require awkward changes to the entry and exit driveways, their retention will not be required, but replacement trees at a 3 to I ratio must be provided. The YHCA shall ftle with the City a bond, or other form of security acceptable to the, City Attorney in a fo~n approved by the City Attorney, equal to the full value of al1 plant landscaping materials to guarantee landscaping maintenance and replacement of any lost landscaping, for a period of three years from the date Of installation of site landscaping. ~:\UPgO38.k ". ! 6.1 The applicant.shall subeJt a temporary parking plan, for the approval of the Planning and Transportation Divisions, prior to issuance of anybuilding permit, as follows: The existing parking lot shall be ma|ntained during the exterior building construction phase. After the exterior building construction is completed, the new parking areas on the southern and western sides should be constructed. Once these new areas a~ecompleted (and while interior construction is underway), the existing lots can be reconstructed. Construction shall be phased so as~oto preclude completion of the butldtng expansion until reconstruction of the entire parking lot is completed. The plan shall indicate the number of" spaces which w~ll be avatlabl~ during each phase and any conflicts with scheduled events which may produce parking demand in excess of what will be available. If such conflicts are evident, such events sha]l be canceled, rescheduled, or held in another location. Provision for YMCA employee and contractor employee parking shall also be detailed. Shuttle service from- a nearby designated off-street parking area may be required. 6.1.5 All on-site construction activities, including construction of the new addition, renovations of existing building areas and reconstruction of the parking area (including site landscaping, but excluding the sound wall, which must be completed prior to any other construction beginning as required in condition 6.2), shall be completed within 24 months following issuance of the building permit for the new addition and renovations. One extension of the 24 month time period not to exceed 12 months may be granted by the Planning Commission at the applicant’s request, if the Planning Commission finds good cause to grant such an extension. 6.2 The property line sound barrier required in condition 4.1 ~hall be constructed as the first element of the project, so as to reduce construction noise generated by the remainder of the project. Temporary fencing, to provide security between the site and adjacent parcels, shall be installed as necessary while the sound barrier is being constructed. The building permit for building improvements shall not be issued until the barrier is completed. ~shall ¯. All construction activities must be undertaken during allowed hours of construction ¯ 0 amto ¯Monda thro h Frida , and shall be in full compliance with the Pa apter 9.10 of the Municipal Code). 6.4 The name and phone number of the City’s Code Compliance Inspector and the construction project manager shall be clearly posted at the entrance to the construction site, indicating hours of allowed construction and a message that these persons may be contacted with any concerns or complaints regarding construction noise. The sign shall be designed as set forth in Section 9.I0.060(2)(B) of the noise ordinance, with the exception of the change in hours. The construction project manager shall be directly responsible to the City’s Code Compliance Inspector, and shall a:\UPgO38.R 6.S 6.6 6.7 6.]0 6.11 be granted the authority by the applicant to respond to any requests in a .tt~ely manner. All exposed or disturbed earth surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily, once during the late ~orning and once at the end of the work day. The frequency of watering shall increase to include one additional occurrence on windy days. Reclaimed water, in accordance with Public Works Department policies, shall be used for this purpose. Stockpiles of debris, sot1, sand or other materials that can be blown by wind shall be covered. All portions of the site shall be landscaped or covered as soon as construction is completed in that area. All clearing, gradtng, earth moving and excavation activities shall cease during periods when winds exceed 20 mph forbore than one hour. On-site vehicle speed shall be ltmited to 15 mph. The contractor shall designate a person to monitor dust control program who has the authority to request increased watering and cleaning of streets when necessary or upon request of the Public Works Department. The construction area and adjacent streets shall be swept of all mud and silt on a datly basis. Any spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property, shall be removed imedtately. (f, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the contractor fails to comply with any of the above requirements regarding sptllage and dust control, and the contractor is either unwilling or unable to remedy tbe deficiency, the City Engineer shall have the right to e~ploy private or public work forces and equipment as reasonably deemed necessary to correct the deficiency. The cost of employing such forces and equipment shall be doubled as a penalty, and such cost shall be borne bythe applicant. Such action taken by the City Engtneer shall not relieve the Contractor of the respons|btltty concerning sptllage and dust control. GRAI)ZHG AND DRAINAG~ A soils report, prepared by a registered engineer, shall be reviewed and approved by the Publtc Horks Department prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. The soils report must consider and address the potentialfor problems to result from the high groundwater levels indicated for thts general area of Palo Alto. A detailed grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered engineer, shall be approved by the Public ~orks Department prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. The drainage plan shall provide for the entire site to be drained directly into Barton Creek, relieving the existing storm drain on Ross Road of drainage from the site. Approval of ~:\UPgO38.E 7.3 7.4 7.5 the drainage plan shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District prior, to su~Ittal of the plan for City approval. Prior to issuance of any butlding pe~tt, the applicant shall provide certification to the Public Norks Department that the proposed construction meets all the FDCA requirements for construction within l flood zone. A street opening permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. , Portions of damaged sidewalk, totaling approximately 86 linear feet, located directly in front of the YMCA site shall be replaced by the applicant. The Public Works Department will specifically locate the damaged areas following issuance of the street opening per~tt. 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Prior to receiving occupancy of the new addition, the YHCA must demonstrate that it has complted with the requirements of Tttle 17 (Hazardous Hatertals Storage) of the Pal, Alto Hunicipal Code, including obtaining a permit for storage and use of pool chemicals, tf the Fire Department determines one is necessaw. The applicant must comply with Section 12.32.015(e) of the City’s Hunicipal Code, which prohibits the f|]]tng of new pools, spas and hot tubs with water supplied by the Palo Alto water utility. The applicant shall work with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, and phone facilities. The applicant shall beresponsible for all costs associated with any necessaw upgrades to serve the facility. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities and Water, Gas and Sewer Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. An outdoor exercise path shall be allowed on the project site. The final location and configuration of the path shall be as approved by the Architectural Review Boardo1. NANCY MADDOX LYTLE Zoning Admi ni strator As approved by Palo Alto City Council November 25, 1991 cc: Barry Taylor, Hid-Peninsula YMCA a:\uPg038.~ EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1030 E. DUANE AVENUE, SUITE F Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-730-5574 SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 FAX: 408-730-0702 Mr. Jan VanDerLaan Winterlodge of Palo Alto 3009 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 8,1996 Project NO. 28-016 RECEIVED APR 1 21996 Department of P~anning and Community Environment Subject:Acoustical Analysis for the Planned Tennis Court Remodel Project, Winterlodge of Palo Alto, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto Dear Mr. VanDerLaan: This report presents the results of an acoustical analysis for the planned tennis court remodel project at the Winterlodge of Palo Alto at 3009 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto, as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, Ref. (a). The noise levels presented herein were evaluated against the standards of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Ref. (b). The results of the analysis indicate the tennis playing noise levels were in violation of the Noise Ordinance standards in the past during serving of the ball. The planned project maximum single-event noise levels will be the same as. the previous levels. The average noise levels will be 3 dB higher than before, but will remain within the limits the of Noise Ordinance. Sections I and II of this report contain a summary of our findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent sections contain descriptions of the noise measurement methodologies and conclusions. Appendices A, B and C, attached, contain the list of references, descriptions of the standards, definitions of the terminology, descriptions of the acoustical instrumentation used for the field survey, and the on-site noise measurement data, respectively. MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY -2- I.Summary. of Findings The noise levels presented herein were evaluated against the standards of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, specifies a noise level limit of 15 dB above the existing ambient condition at the most impacted residential property line. The ambient is defined as the lowest sound level repeating during a 6 minute time period. Statistically, this sound level is the hourly L90, i.e., the sound level exceed 90% (6 minutes out of 60) of the measurement hour, and is considered the "background" noise level. The Noise Ordinance also has a lower limit on the ambient noise level. The ambient shall not be less than 40 dBA. A. ’ Existing Noise Levels The noise levels at the mdst impacted residential property line closest to the tennis court area ranged from 42 dBA Lg0 to 48.5 dBA Lg0 during the operational hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on a Saturday. On Sunday morning, the ambient noise levels ranged from 41 dBA L90 to 43 dBA Lg0. The lowest L90 (41 dBA) occurred during the hours of 8:00 -10:00 a.m. Sunday. The Noise Ordinance limit is 15 dB above the lowest L90 or, 56 dBA. B.Measured Noise Levels There are two significant noise sources created during tennis playing; 1) The ball being hit and 2) the squeak of tennis shoes sliding on the court surface. The maximum measured noise level of a tennis ball being hit was 58 dBA at a distance of 40 ft. The maximum noise level of tennis shoes squeaking on the court surface was 52 dBA at a distance of 40 ft. The average noise level measured during 1 hour of tennis playing was 48 dBA Leq at a distance of 40 ft. from the end of the court. C.Project-Generated Noise Levels The maximum noise level at the north property line under the previous tennis court scenario was 64 dBA. This noise level was 8 dB in excess of the Noise Ordinance limit. The average noise level at the north property line under the previous tennis court scenario was 54 dBA. This noise level was 2 dB below the Noise Ordinance limit. The maximum noise level at the west property line (west of Matadero Creek) under the previous tennis court scenario was 56 dBA. This noise level was at the Noise Ordinance limit. The average noise level at the west property line (west of Matadero Creek) under the previous tennis court scenario 51 dBA. This noise level was 5 dB below the Noise Ordinance limit. -4- The maximum noise level at the north property line under the proposed tennis court scenario will be 64 dBA. This noise level will be 8 dB in excess of the Noise Ordinance limit. The average noise level at the north property line under the proposed tennis court scenario will be 57 dBA. This noise level will be 1 dB in excess of the Noise Ordinance limit. The maximum noise level at the west property line (west of Matadero Creek) under the proposed tennis court scenario will be 56 dBA. This noise level will be at the Noise Ordinance limit. The average noise level at the west property line (west of Matadero Creek) under the proposed tennis court scenario will be 47 dBA. This noise level will be 9 dB below the Noise Ordinance limit. The existing fence along the east property line will adequately reduce tennis court to acceptable levels at the residences to the east. Table I shows the results of the analysis indicating the average noise level and the maximum noise levels from ball hits and shoe squeaks from each court under the previous tennis court (old) scenario and the proposed (new) scenario. Note that the total noise levels for the ball hits or shoe squeaks are for individual noise events. For these to be additive, they must occur at precisely the same time. The proposed tennis court scenario will result in an average noise level 3 dB higher than the previous scenario. The maximum noise levels will remain unchanged. As Noise Ordinance excesses will occur, mitigation measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section II, below. O9 m o o o o o 0 o o o o o 0 o o. o. ~ o o o o ~o o o o 0 -5- II.Recommendations To reduce the maximum noise level from the service of balls to acceptable levels, the following measures will be required: Construct a 6 ft. high acoustically-effective barrier along the entire north property line. The existing fence may be utilized provided it is 6 ft. above the tennis court surface elevation and it is constructed air-tight. Inspect the fence for any openings no matter how small. Seal all openings to ensure air-tightness. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest tennis court elevation. Please see Figure 1 for the location of the recommended noise control barrier. To achieve an acoustically-effective’ barrier or fence, it must be made air-tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other openings, and provide for long-term durability. The barrier can be constructed of wood, masonry, concrete, stucco, earth berm or a combination thereof and must have a minimum surface weight of 2.5 lbs. per sq. ft. If a wood fence is used, homogeneous sheet materials are preferable over conventional wood fencing as the latter has a tendency to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality, air- tight, tongue-and-groove, shiplap or board and batten construction can be used, provided the minimum surface weight requirement is met and the construction is air-tight. The noise control barrier must be constructed so that all joints, including connections with posts or pilasters are sealed airtight, and no openings are permitted between the upper barrier components and the ground. PRNATATE HOME8 Rs-fucblah PRIVATATE HCME~ ,STORM DRAIN DEAD ENO RESIDENT;AL ~ ICQNDCMINIU,,, DRAIN LINE I I SNOW PIT DRA;N FOR PARKING RESIOENT~AL -- CGI’IOOMINIU,~ FIGURE 1 WINTER LODGE’"’"" Locations of recommended noise control barriers. Barrier heights are in reference to the nearest tennisFigure 1 court elevation. Source: Edward L. Pack Assoco, Inco -6- III. Noise Measurement Methodology. To determine the existing noise environment at the most impacted property line, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made for a 41-hour period from 4:43 p.m. to 4:43 p.m. March 1-3, 1995. These hours included Saturday and Sunday mornings. The remainder of the Sunday measurements were aborted due to rain. The sound measurements were made with a Larson Davis LDL 700 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, which yields by direct readout a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time. The results of the measurements are shown in the data table in Appendix C. Shown in the table are the LI, Llo, L50 and L90, i.e., those levels of noise exceeded 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of the time. Also shown are the maximum and minimum levels, and the continuous equivalent-energy levels (Lcq). As shown in the tables, the L90’s ranged from 42 dBA to 48.5 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and from 41 to 43 dBA at 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Sunday. Thus, the lowest measured background noise level was 41 dBA. The noise limit at the residential area from the project is 41 dBA + 15dB --- 56 dBA. To determine the noise levels of tennis playing, noise level data was acquired from a study of tennis playing the Brookside Swim & Racquet Club in Saratoga, Ref. (c). That study revealed that maximum noise levels are created by the "slap" of the racquet striking the ball during hits, primarily s.erves, and the "squeak" of tennis shoes sliding on the tennis court surface. As these noises are intermittent, the sound energy average (Leq) was also measured. The maximum noise level from a ball being hit was 58 dBA at a distance of 40 ft. The maximum noise level from a shoe squeak was 52 dBA. The hourly average noise level was 48 dBA Leq. -7- IV. Conclusions In conclusion, the proposed tennis court project will result in maximum noise levels the same as what was experienced when the old courts were in use. The average noise level will increase by 3 dB, which is a barely noticeable increase. The tennis court noise from balls being served will, however, be in excess of the limits of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Recommendations. to resolve the maximum noise excess are presented in Section II of this report. The study findings and recommendations for present conditions are based on field measurements and other data, and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Significant changes in site planning, tennis apparatus technology, noise regulations or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our estimates. The above report presents the results of our acoustical analysis for the planned tennis court remodel project at the Winterlodge of Palo Alto at 3009 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration of this report, please call hie. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President JKP:j Attachments:Appendices A, B and C References: APPENDIX A (a) (b) (c) Conceptual Site Plan, Winterlodge of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10, Sections 9.10.020, 9.10.040, September 15, 1972 "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim & Racquet Club, Saratoga", by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Project No. 21-093, September 7, 1989 APPENDIX B Noise Standards, Terminology, Instrumentation, Ventilation, and Building Shell Requirements 1.Noise Standards A.City. of Pal0 Alto Noise Ordinance Standards The City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10, Sections 9.10.010...9.0.070, September 15, 1972, define the local ambient to be the measured Lg0 for an hour with the noise issue silent. The residential noise limit is 6 dB above the local ambient, while the commercial noise limit is 8 dB above the ambient. These level apply to the land use ¯ creating the noise. Public property noise is limited to 15 dB above the ambient. B-1 2.Terminolog~ A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows: L~-A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. L~0 -A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. Ls0 -The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. g90 The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level. geq The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady state noise having the same energy as a given time-varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared, and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL. B-2 B.A-Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. 3.Instrumentation The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the sound analyzer listed below. The instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level (Leq). Input to the meters were provided by microphones extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meters were used in conformance with the applicable standards. The Larson-Davis meters were factory modified to conform with the Type 1 performance standards of ANSI $1.4. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 700 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter GenRad 1945 Community Noise Analyzer B-3 APPENDIX C On-Site Noise Measurement Data THE WINTERLODGE OF PALO ALTO - FILE: 28-016.DTA - DATE 3/1-2/1996 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AT PROPERTY LINE AT TENNIS COURT #4 Cnt 1 4 5 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 LVL 49 0 49 5 5O 5 5O 5 48 0 44 5 46 0 44.5 45 5 42 5 41 5 46 0 49 0 47 5 49 5 51 o SEL 84 5 85 0 86 0 86 0 83 5 80 0 81 5 8O 0 81 0 78 0 77 0 81 5 84 5 83 0 85 0 86 5 Lmax Lpk 73 0 96.0 L01 = 57.5 61 0 75.5 L01 = 57.0 67 0 90.0 L01 = 56.5 71 5 85.0 L01 = 58.5 66 0 78.0 L01 = 61.0 56 0 67.0 L01 = 48.5 59.5 68.5 L01 = 53.0 60 0 72.5 L01 = 55.5 65 0 77.5 L01 = 58.5 50 0 63.0 L01 = 46.5 60 0 72.0 L01 = 46.0 63 5 77.0 L01 = 54.0 61 5 74.5 L01 = 56.0 65.5 87.5 L01 = 56.0 68.5 86.0 L01 = 60.0 68.0 89.0 L01 = 62.0 Lmin Date 39 5 1 MAR LI0 = 51 5 400 1 ~AR LI0 = 52 5 43 0 1 MAR LI0 = 53 0 42 0 i MAR LI0 = 53 0 39 5 1 MAR L10 = 49 0 400 i MAR LI0 = 46 0 42 0 2 MAR LI0 = 47 0 38 5 2 MAR LI0 = 45 5 380 2 MAR LI0 = 45 0 37 5 2 MAR LI0 = 44 5 37 0 2 MAR LI0 = 43 0 38 0 2 MAR LI0 = 48 5 415 2 MAR LI0 = 51 0 39 0 2 MAR LI0 = 50 5 38 5 2 MAR LI0 = 51 5 40 5 2 MAR LI0 = 53 0 Time Dur Ex Pk Ov 18:42:56 i:00 h:m 1 1 0 L50 = 47.5 Lg0 = 45.0 19:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 48.5 L90 = 43.5 20:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 49.0 L90 = 46.5 21:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 48.0 L90 = 45.0 22:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 45.0 L90 = 43.0 23:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 44.0 L90 = 43.0 0:42:56 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 45.0 L90 = 44.0 1:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 43.0 L90 = 40 5 2:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 42.5 L90 = 40 5 3:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 42.0 Lg0 = 39 5 4:42:56 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 41.0 L90 = 39 0 5:42:56 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 44.5 L90 = 41 0 6:42:56 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 48.0 Lg0 = 45 5 7:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 45.5 L90 = 43 0 8:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 47.0 L90 = 44 0 9:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 48.0 Lg0 = 44.5 WINTERLODGE TENNIS PG. 2 17 49.5 85 0 64 0 80.5 39.5 2 MAR 10:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L01 = 58.5 LI0 = 52 5 L50 = 47.0 Lg0 = 43 5 18 19 49.0 48.0 84 5 83 5 81 5 89.0 L01 = 56.5 67 0 80.0 L01 = 59.0 40.5 2 MAR LI0 = 51 0 39.5 2 MAR LI0 = 51 0 11:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 46.0 Lg0 = 43 5 12:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 44.5 Lg0 = 42 0 2O 49.0 84 5 68 0 86.5 L01 = 59.0 41.0 2 MAR 13:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 51 0 L50 = 47.0 Lg0 = 44 5 21 49.0 84 5 69 5 81.5 L01 = 58.5 40.0 2 MAR 14:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 51 0 L50 = 46.5 Lg0 = 43 0 22 51.0 86 5 70 5 85.5 L01 = 61.0 41.5 2 MAR 15:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 53 0 L50 = 49.0 Lg0 = 46 5 23 49 0 84 5 70 0 79.5 L01 = 55.5 41 5 2 MAR 16:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 51 5 L50 = 47.5 L90 = 44 5 24 49 0 84 5 66 0 77.0 L01 = 59.0 42 0 2 MAR 17:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 50 5 L50 = 46.5 L90 = 45 0 25 49 0 84 5 67 0 78.0 L01 = 58.0 42 0 2 MAR 18:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L10 = 51 5 L50 = 46.5. Lg0 = 44 5 26 50 5 86 0 68 5 88.5 L01 = 59.0 40 5 2 MAR 19:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 53 0 L50 = 49.0 Lg0 = 44.5 27 52 0 88 0 71 0 80.5 44 0 2 MAR 20:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L01 = 59.0 LI0 = 54 5 L50 = 51.0 L90 = 48.5 28 52 0 87 5 82 5 91.0 40 0 2 MAR 21:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L01 = 57.5 LI0 = 53 0 L50 = 47.0 Lg0 = 43.0 29 45 0 80 5 70 5 82.’0 L01 = 52.5 39 5 2 MAR 22:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 46 0 L50 = 43.0 L90 = 41.5 3O 43 0 78 5 53 5 63.5 L01 = 46.5 39 5 2 MAR 23:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 44 5 L50 = 42.5 L90 = 41.5 31 43 0 79 0 52 5 65.0 L01 = 49.5 380 3 MAR LI0 = 45 5 0:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 42.0 L90 = 40.0 32 40 5 76 0 55 5 65.0 36 5 3 MAR L01 = 43.5 LI0 = 42 0 1:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 40.0 L90 = 38.5 33 39 0 74 5 62 5 73.5 L01 = 46.5 33 5 3 MAR 2:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L10 = 41 0 L50 = 38.0 L90 = 35.5 WINTERLODGE TENNIS PG. 3 34 39 0 74 5 51 0 65.5 L01 = 42.5 33 5 3 MAR LI0 = 40 5 3:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 39.0 L90 = 36 5 35 36 41 0 43 0 76 5 78 5 49 0 60.0 L01 = 46.0 56 0 68.5 L01 = 51.0 37 5 3 MAR LI0 = 43 0 375 3 {4AR LI0 = 46 0 4:42:57 i:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 40.5 Lg0 = 39 0 5:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 41.0 Lg0 = 39 0 37 48 5 84 0 65 5 79.5 L01 = 56.5 39 0 3 MAR 6:42:57 i:00’ h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 52 0 L50 = 46.0 Lg0 = 42 0 38 49 5 85 0 79 0 90.5 L01 = 59.5 37 0 3 MAR 7:42:57 , I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 51 5 L50 = 45.0 Lg0 = 41 0 39 48 0 83 5 64 5 85.5 L01 = 59.0 37 5 3 MAR 8:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 50 5 L50 = 44.5 Lg0 = 41 0 40 49 5 85 o 65 0 79.0 L01 = 59.0 390 3 MAR LI0 = 52 5 9:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 L50 = 46.5 L90 = 43 0 41 48 0 83 5 66 0 80.0 L01 = 55.5 39 0 3 MAR 10:42:57 I:00 h:m 0 0 0 LI0 = 51 0 L50 = 46.5 Lg0 = 43 0 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING June 20, 1996 Excerpt 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 96-UP-1 96-EIA-1 Ms. Grote: This is an application for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (a tennis facility) on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center. The applicant proposes site improvements, including reorienting two existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remai .ning courts, and construction of one additional court and a ’park area, including restroom facilities, as per attached plans. There is a mitigated negative declaration which is under consideration today, as well. Is the applicant present to ’give a brief summary? Mami Barnes, 846 Boyce, Palo Alto: I am the landscape designer for this project. I will stand and hope that I can project into the mike. The site is basically a land-locked site. It was a flag lot surrounded on three sides by residential, with a creek running down one side between the residential and this side. The lodge is the Winter Lodge and a gas station. As you probably are all aware, there are four existing tennis courts they are proposing to resurface, adding a fiPda, and creating a passiv~ recreation area to serve both as a buffer zone between the higher density residential area and also as a place for people to wait and picnic. We have been very aware of concerns about noise. We are trying.to be a good neighbor and are, in fact, improving the situaiion by constructing a sound wall on two sides 0f the property where there is nothing now: We also have refrained from putting in any play equipment in the passive recreation area, figuring that that area really will be for family-supervised type of activities, either by people waiting to go onto the courts or families who bring in their kids and sit and eat something while they are there. So there will be parental supervision. In order to facilitate the way that will be carried out, we are proposing that this be a key facility so that we can monitor the coming and going and will not have kids going back there with their skate boards and such things as they have been doing in the past. It used to be a pool site. It was quite noisy, as I recall when I used to swim there. It has been fallow for about nine years, so it has been rather quieL although the use of the tennis courts has continued. The use that we are proposing is about as low key as you could get, I believe even more so than residential, because you would then expect unsupervised kids" activities butdoors in a residential setting. We are trying to do what we can to keep the noise down. ’~’ ’ Also,. lights have been brought up.. It Was mandated by the CityCouncil that there will be no lighting at night. Everyone is in agreement, and that is the way we are proceeding. I have a photoboard of the existing conditions as of several months ago now. The plans are here, so we Krl]PCMINS.31A:B009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 1 can move into questions. Ms. Grote: Does that mean that you will be taking down the light fixtures that are there? Ms. Barnes: Yes. Ms. Grote: What was your thinking behind the location of the restrooms? Is there a reason why you chose to locate them here? Ms. Barnes: It was a practical issue in that we need to have a place to’ store bleachers. It also is one of the few places where we can put a structure that does not interfere with mature trees.~ We are taking out one mature tree to protect the trees, and we wanted to place the structure in such a way as to protect the trees, so it was a combination of different issues, Also, there is a covered seating area on what I would call the inside of that structure, so the restrooms themselves will serve as a sound buffer for that seating area which might be.slightly more echoey than the rest of the open site. So the structure itself will serve as a sound barrier from the higher-density residential. Ms.Grote: Where would the seating area be? Ms.Barnes: It is this extended covered patio, which will just have tables and chairs. Ms.Grote: So they are not bleachers. Ms. Barnes: Oh no, bleachers will be here when the time comes, and they will be portable. This is just a covered seating area for a real hot day when people want a little shade while they eat. Ms.Grote: The sound wall that you are talking about would be located along this property line? Ms.Barnes: Correct, all the way down to thecreek. Ms.Grote: And you are proposing that as a mitigation to be a six-foot solid wall? Ms.Barnes:. yes. Ms. Grote: There are a number of people who wish to speak to this item, so I will open it up for public comment, to be followed by some discussion. Ms. Shirley Gee, resident: I want to start off with a point of order. In the Notice of Public Hearing that was issued to owners and interested parties, it identified the applicant as Linda Jensen, Director. I don’t believe that is proper notification. I believe the applicant is not Linda Jensen. It is the Winter Lodge. KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 2 Ms. Grote: We take that information from the application form under "Applicant." It says, Linda Stebbins Jensen, Director, will be the applicant. The owner is listed as the City of Palo Alto, and we have a representative from our real estate division present who also signed the application. Mr. Borock: The reason I am concerned about this is because I think it is an activity affiliated with the Winter Lodge. Is that correct? Ms. Grote: I would have to ask the director. Ms. Barnes: Community Tennis is a separate organization. It is not run under the Winter Lodge. Ms. Shirley Gee: The reason We bring this up is because the information presented does not bring in the idea that we are not talking about a standalone facility. It is not just a new client base, but rather it comes within an existing client base which is affiliated with the Winter Lodge as well as an emerging client base. That implies much more activity than what is denoted here in the public hearing notice. It is misleading. I know when I got this, the first thing I thought of was that it was an independent operation coming in with its own emerging client base. That speaks a little to the capacity and how many people we are talking about participating in the facility. Later on, I found out that this was sort of an activity that would be associated the Winter Lodge, which means that now, we have inherited not just the emerging client base but also the existing client base. That is a tremendous additional use of these facilities. I think it is very misleading to do it this way. Ms. Gee: So what I would like to suggest since we are here now and there are people here to speak and have taken time out to do this, is to go ahead and proceed with the hearing, with the caveat that you understand that you need to give proper notification which will clearly identify the applicant, so that people who are concerned about activities related to the Winter Lodge have an opportunity to also come and participate in these hearings. Ms. Grote: We did notify everyone within 300 feet of the property, so that is legal notification. There has been no indication from our city attorney’s office that this was done incorrectly. So I don’t know that there would be a reason to continue this hearing, based on that. I will certainly take testimony now, as that is important, but I believe it was correctly noticed, and we would not attempt to notice it differently or phrase it differently, regardless of the client base. Our concern is the use in general, not whether the people go to the Winter Lodge as well, or if they go somewhere else as well. Ms. Gee: Is the conditional use permit issued to an individual, Linda Jensen? Does that mean that when she leaves, the conditional use permit expires? Ms. Grote: No, it runs with the land. KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 3 Ms. Gee: So essentially, it is not to the individual to whom you issue the use permit. Ms. Grote: It runs with the land. If someone else becomes the director, they will be the director of the facility on this piece of property. Ms. Gee: That does not have to be the case if the conditional use permit runs with the land unless it is issued with the understanding that once the title changes, it reverts back and that permit is canceled. Ms. Grote: We do not condition use permits in that manner. It rtms with the land, and we do not condition it on ownership or directorship or clientele. Ms. Gee: So essentially, it goes forward and continues to be commercial all the way through the title. Ms. Grote: Unless someone comes in to change the use and gets a different use permit. Ms. Gee: So essentially, this is something that is not going to affect the future of that particular property. Ms. Grote: It will affect how that property is used. Whatever is approved will need to be complied with. That means the site plan, the layout, any conditions of approval. Those will continue to need to be complied with. Ms: Gee: And you are saying that the conditional use permit cannot be revoked upon change of title? Ms.Grote: Not upon change of title. Ms.Gee: That cannot be written into a conditional use pemait? Ms.Grote: No. Ms.Gee: I think that is possible. Ms. Grote: It is not a standard practice, and I would not be inclined to do that. We do not monitor who owns or is leasing a particular piece of property. The use is what is at issue or is the question. It is not who owns it or who directs it. It is the useon the parcel, but I thank you for your comments. Jane Pease, 72 Ell~worth Place, Palo Alto: Is there a proposal to rezone this to a Public Facility? If it is to be by a keyed entry, will it then become a private facility? KFIIPCMIN S.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 4 Mr. Colorma: The zoning would not need to be changed just because there is a private organization running a business there. In the PF zone district, there are private recreational facilities that are allowed through the conditional use permit, and that is why they are here today with their use permit application. Just because it says Public Facilities does not necessarily mean that it has to be run by the City of Palo Alto. We have many PF-zoned properties throughout town where other entities are running businesses. Stanford Hospital would be the best example. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place: Is the city liable for anything that happens on the property? Ms. Grote: Janet Freeland from our real estate division can reply. Ms. Freeland: The City of Palo Alto owns the parcel. The organization that has an option to lease the parcel is Community Skating, Inc. They are also the organization that operates the Winter Lodge. If they fulfill certain option conditions (and this use permit is only one of those conditions), they will be granted a lease to operate a tennis facility open to the public for a fee, just as they now operate an ice skating rink open to the public for a fee. The lease requires them to carry liability and fire insurance, etc. They would be liable for anything that goes wrong. Shirley Gee, Owner at 3077 Middlefield Road Road, Palo Alto: There are technical and legal aspects of this in terms of proper public notification, but I think it is just as much a question of the purpose of public notification which is to provide all of the necessary information so that we can make an informed decision as to whether we need to become involved. Wh6n I first looked at this, I thought this was a separate individual applicant, not associated with an organization, only to find out that that was not true. Stephanie McClymonds, 740 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: I live right across the creek. I was wondering if any barrier is going to be by the creek so that the noise will not reverberate into our homes. Ms. Barnes: Not as planned at present. When we had the sound engineers out, they did not record anything over here. Ms. McClymonds: They did not come into our yard, so how could they test it. Ms. Barnes: I was not there, but my understanding was that their reading over here was that it was sufficiently low. In fact, their read!ng over here was sufficiently low, except for a few peaks. We are going to be improving that situation. Ms. McClymonds: Then why can’t there be a barrier along the creek? Ms. Barnes: There is nothing that prohibits us from doing that. It does remain in question whether that .would actually help, because the angles might be such that it is over that distance. 11-07-96 KITIPCMINS.31A:X3009MIDD.620 Page 5 That is something we will have to talk about. If that is a concern of yours, you should log it today. There are many more stages coming along in this process such as design review. These issues can be addressed in that phase, as well. , Ms. Grote: As I understand your comment, you would like to see a similar sound wall along here. Ms. McClymonds: If you are standing on this side, you don’t know, but if you are standing on the other side, it could make a difference. John Abraham~ 736 Ellsworth Place~ Palo Alto: I live about three houses down on Ellsworth. I am familiar with the report. They have done engineering and a noise analysis aspart of this application. Theydo bring up a number of interesting points~ and I assume this is going to be a part of the decision process. They are a bit optimistic about Matadero Creek. There is an error in the report that understates the effects. I would like to point out the error, because it does have everything to do with Matadero Creek. I have written a letter to you, and for the record, it is on Page 4. The impact of that is that the whole scenario has more impact than the noise analysis indicates. Ms. Grote: Do you realize that even if it were 51 decibels instead of 47, it would then be five decibels below the noise ordinance rather than nine? It would still be below the noise ordinance. Mr. Abraham: That is part of the problem. The other problem is that you also have to consider the maximum noise level. Along Matadero Creek, according to the report, it goes right up to 56. There will be a reflection back towards us. So we are going to get some noise just from the reflection of the sound wall. Ms. Grote: So you are maintaining that if there is a sound wall along this side of the property, some of the noise could reflect off of it and over the creek. Mr./kbraham: Absolutely. Ms. Fisher: Also, they never took readings from our back yards. Mr. Abraham: You can tell that from the table. They just added six decibels to ten decibels and four decibels in that table to.every single entry in the first column. It was done by what you would say "engineering expertise." It is their estimate, based on the sound at a given point and the distance away. Jan VanLand and I am on the board of directors of the Winter Lodge..Edward Pack and Associates is a professional sound acoustic engineering firm that does this sort of thing. They abided by all of the requirements. Their sound equipment was set up on the perimeter, which is KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 6 what the city requires. From there, you are right, they do make projections from that. Those projections are based on many years of expertise and data. It is not just picking it out of the air. Possibly the lower decibel indication is there because of the reorientation of the porch. They expect lower levels. Mr. Abraham: I talked to Mr. Pack about that, but I could not get him to commit to anything because he did not have the report in front of him, but he said that basically, the sound level could be the same, because the reorientation would be approximately the same, as far as Matadero Creek was concerned. There are more problems than what I just mentioned with the engineering report. One of the problems is that they were rained out, so there were only two days, not three.days, when they did the study. Since the day was overcast, I really dispute whether they had anything like a reasonable approximation of your average sunny day. Why would tennis players show up on a cloudy day when it looks like it is going to rain? And it did rain. Another problem is that their own data taken from the last Page, average over three time periods, morning, noon and evening, the sound level increases slightly. It is off by one or two decibels. I do not dispute their technical expertise throughout the report, but certain places appear to have mistakes. ~ Natalie Fisher,’ 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: There are at least five of us from Ellsworth Street plus the people from the condominiums. Regardless of what sound studies are done now, the situation is very different from the way it will be under the proposal by Community Skating. My bedroom fs right across the creek from the four courts. The courts are aligned along the creek in a string, and I am right across.the street from them, as are most of the neighbors. Right now, it is a public facility. People come in and they play, and there are only daylight hours because there are no lights. Sometimes, there is only. one court in use, and sometimes there will be hours when none of the courts are being used. The proposed activity is to have those courts in use every hour, eight o’clock in the morning until dark. Four of those hours are group lessons for young kids; and the rest of the time for key entry. That is five courts in use at the same time all day long. Those sound levels have got to be far greater than they are now. They have been for years. When people play at eight in the morning, we are up, .That is the end of our sleep. Those of us who don’t still work, who have earned our retirement, forget it. We can’t sleep. Are you planning to have key entries on the weekends? I don’t know what your schedule is planned to be. So it will be seven days a week of constant use of those courts without any mitigation. We should have a land buffer, I am not sure that sound walls will make a difference. As a matter of faet~ if there is a sound wall to protect the condominiums, we are going to get the reflection off that. We have a sound wall along the tree, and there is a sound wall along all three sides, and the area inside that enclosure will probably be horrific for the people in there. I am not sure that. there is any sound mitigation that will work. This is an improper use for this area. The residences are too close to have tennis tournaments; tennis matches, bleachers, a playground, a barbecue area, a picnic area. We have so many parks in Palo Alto that are suitable for these uses, and there are.tennis courts that have lights that do not impact the neighbors because there is a land buffer. We have no land buffer here, and the creek is absolutely no buffer. If anything, it KFI]PCMINS.31A:~009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 7 might even make the sound louder. Those balls hitting sound like fire crackers going off. It sounds like the 4tlr of July. You can’t play a sport like that without a lot of yelling and screaming and whooping at each other. I am afraid that with this new use, we will not be able to live on our streets and we will not be able to sell our houses because the noise levels have got to be horrific. They are already enough to be disturbing, but because people are not playing all day long and all the courts are not in use at once, we have been able to live with it. We won’t be able to live with this new use. It is an improper use for that site, and it has no business getting this far. Wei-Chien Tung, 3073 Middlefield Road, Pale Alto: The noise from Winterlodge is already terrible. If I close the window, that is okay in the winter, but if I open the window, it is terrible. The air pollution, every time they have a party, they have a barbecue and is terrible. I cannot " stand it. Carbon monoxide is a poison. Now I hear they will build a picnic area. I don’t think this is the place. Also the construction. I don’t know what they are building, but when I was sick and stayed at home, it was like an earthquake. (They moved the pool) So if they continue to do construction, I worry about our apartment shaking. The windows are shaking. When they built up the parking lot, they closed the sidewalk. We have no road to walk on. Everyday, I walk.on the driveway. I don’t know how long they will continue to do some construction. I read on the map that they are going to build restrooms. I worry that in the future, the restrooms might smell bad. I have lived in this apartment for four years and I just want to express my opinion. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, Pale Alto:. She has just pointed out how inconvenient, how put out we have been over the past two years. With the Winter Lodge expansion, we went through hours and hours of a lot of disruption. We went through the parking lot renovation, a lot of disruption. We went through the swimming pool. A lot of disruption and aggravation. The house was shaking. My house was shaking also. Regarding the noise mitigation,. I don’t believe there is any noise mitigation that is going to help our units that are on the second and third stories. There is no sound wall that is going to reach up to the second and third stories of the condominium. We are looking at a fifth tennis court when we don’t even need four tennis courts. This is not an essential need. When the condominiums were built, we knew there was a Winter Lodge and ice skating in the winter. We put Up with the noise for nine months of the year, knowing that for at least three months, we would have peace and quiet. In the winter months, at least we can close our windows. In the summer months, we cannot close our windows against the noise of the tennis rackets. We Cannot close our windows against the smoke fumes and toxins of barbecue pits. We cannot close our windows against the stench from the ladies’ and mens’ rooms. Where there is food, we are going to have rodents, we are going to have more children, more screaming, and this is going to go on seven days a week all summer long. This is’ not fair to us. The city zoned our property residential when the Winter Lodge is there. Now you are saying, now that you residents are there, the hell with you, we are going to make it year round noise, smoke, traffic, and it is just totally unfair. It is against what the city had zoned our land for. Our property values will be greatly reduced living next door to this huge facility. It is not just a skating rink anymore. They want to make it a full blown recreational facility. It is not the KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009M1DD.620 11-07-96 Page 8 place for it. Let these people go to the other tennis courts. Let them go to the parks. There are plenty of them that ,are very underutilized. We don’t need this. It is just totally unfair. Ms. Grote: I have heard reference to a barbecue area or snack area. Is there anything like that proposed? I do not see that on the plan. Ms. Barnes: No, there is an area provided if people want to bring their bag lunches. There are no barbecue pits, and I believe the Winter Lodge has stopped doing barbecues. There is no new barbecue or any kind of cooking facility proposed. Gil Watkins, 712 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: I must admit I am learning more about this as every day passes. This is not the most affluent part of Palo Alto. The north part of Palo Alto is. I wondered to myself, and perhaps this is unfair to say, but if this project were proposed for Crescent Park, it would never have gotten this far. Also, I am curious about these sound checks and decibel levels, and as this gentlemen stated, the fact that one day they were rained out. It just makes sense to me that even if they did it during a time of maximum use when all four courts were being used, if you are planning on maximizing the use of this property, which it sounds like what they are trying to do by installing a court, that is going to add a 25% increase in the decibel level right there. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. If you have four courts now, and you add a fifth, that is going to raise the noise level. I also want to second the concern about these sound walls and the sound reverberating off of them. This has been a big problem, as we all know, with a lot of the freeways. Highway 85 has been the most recent example of people in Saratoga who are now going crazy from all of the residual noise that is coming offofthe sound barriers into their luxury properties. So it seems like a gross oversight in the planning of the noise mitigation. Another issue I have to express, in hearing all the plans for classes, etc., and this issue of maximizing the use of this property for those who are paying this fee, I can’t help thinking about how it was only four or five weeks ago that there was an accident right in front of the Arco station there. I am thinking of all the additional traffic coming out from that property onto Middlefield Road where there is no light, where there is a rise in Middlefield from the creek, and where there is the cul-de-sac on the west side of Middlefield where all the apartments are. There is so much traffic coming out of there, and you add another 25% of traffic from the tennis courts, seven days a week, you are going to have more problems there, too. I don’t know if anyone has thought about that in conjunction with this or not, but I have not heard about that concern being addressed. .Ms. Grote: Our transportation division did look at the traffic impact. It will be about 33 additional trips over what a vacant site would have generated,, and fewer trips than what the pool generated. Mr. Watkins: Is this going to be limited to Palo Alto residents only? Krl’]PCMINS.31A:~3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 9 Ms. Grote: No, it is not. Mr. Watkins: So people can be driving fi’om Redwood City or Mountain View or Woodside or Portola Valley ~ind coming along Middlefield Road. Ms. Grote: As they could have when this was a pool, as well. So it does not increase the traffic from that use. It actually decreases it a bit. Mr. Watkins: Except that if there is a fifth court -- Ms. Grote: And there is no swimming pool. It used to be that the swimming pool would be its own draw. Ms. Fisher: Excuse me, but can you tell me why you use the swimming pool as a reference point when the swimming pool has not been there for years? Joe Colonna. Sr. Planner. City of Palo Alto: The site has been there for 40 years and operated at a much higher capacity. Ms. Wiegner: But the condominiums were not there. Ms. Weigner: The environment has completely changed in the last decade. Ms. Grote: That was one way in which it was evaluated. The other is over a vacant site. This use will generate about 33 additional trips over what it would be for a vacant site or an underutilized site. So Middlefield Road can accommodate those 33 additional trips. Ms. Gee: I am really having some problems contextually with this conversation on a policy basis. You are focusing on a request for a conditional use permit. The thing I am having a little bit of a problem with, there are a lot of people here stating that this is an inappropriate place for a recreational use, especially when there is considerable need for housing. That situation certainly has not changed. The need for housing is more acute than ever before, and the city needs to make a commitment to make this area residential. They want to be consistent. In fact, we are going more and more toward housing, so what I do not understand is why we are basically spot zoning in the middle of a residential area, where the City of Palo Alto has already made a commitment to take it in that particular direction. I would like to point out that a little over ten years ago, they specifically took commercial property offthe Midtown strip and denied the ability to use it as commercial property with the idea that it was going to be converted to a residential area. Those owners took a financial hit on their commercial property in the interest of the larger good. These people lost money on their commercial property because of that particular zoning decision. I understand also that the Winter Lodge was also included as part of that zoning and that, too, was supposed to be zoned residential. Along the way, politically or otherwise, the KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 10 people who made these decisions decided to keep the Winter Lodge, because there was community support for it. I have no problems with that, but to be for the existing use of it at that particular capacity, not for expanded use in conjunction with the decision that this was going to be zoned residentiall There was never any discussion at that time or hence that this particular property, the Winter Lodge in particular, was going to have an expanded use in a commercial direction. That is essentially what you are doing. You are taking it to a commercial direction. The reason I know a little bit about that is that they eliminated a facility that was used by the community. It was called the Chinese Community Center and was used by the Asian American community for community projects, for services, for recreational facilities, and also used very heavily by the Latino community as well. They lost the community center as a result of that city decision. Now what I have a little problem with is that when the city has made a decision and uses basically eminent domain to basically revert a commercial property back to residential, and I would like to think that that was not pretextural to get the community center out of there, they have to be consistent in terms of saying, we decided that this is going to be residential, and continue to go in that direction, not to be selective about who you are going to allow to stay in a commercial use. That is essentially what you have done in allowing the Winter Lodge to expand its use, and it is not even connected to ice skating. They are talking about a tennis facility, snack bars, barbecues, public sanitation facilities. You are definitely going in the direction of commercializing this. You yourself said that the conditional use permit runs with the title of the land. That means that Once you put this conditional use permit on there, this property can.never ever revert back to residential use and will be used for commercial entirely. In fact, the conditional use permit will become an asset that goes with the title. If somebody all of a sudden decides they want to get out of the ice skating business or the tennis business, you could actually turn this into a commercial piece of property for any use that that conditional use permit allows. Ms. Grote: What I said was that the use permit would run with the land. If, in fact, someone came in for another use permit that would be permitted within the zoning district as a conditional permitted use, they in fact could do that~ Ms. Gee:’ Then youshould tell people what a conditional use permit allows them to do for the size of this recreational purpose. Ms. Grote: Thisapplication is for a tennis facility. IfI approve it, the description will be written into the approval, and it will also reference these plans, meaning that the use will be limited to what is written into that description for approval. The configuration would be limited to what is approved here. If a future owner comes in at some point and says, I want to have a use permit for something else that is allowed by code as a conditionally permitted use, they would need to make another application and would go through a similar hearing process such as this. They would then either get approval or denial. Ms. McClymonds: If you approve this conditional use permit, it would further commercialize the property. ’ KITIPCMIIqS.3IA:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 11 Ms. Grote: Actually, it is a continuation of a similar use, It is one more court than has been here. It is not a substantially different use. Ms. Fisher: They are talking about life membership, creating the client base. Ms. Grote: It is still a recreational facility which is allowed as a conditionally permitted use under the code. Ms. Gee: The original point I am trying to make is that the city made a commitment to go in a particular direction, and I think it is really unfair to do this bait and switch on the tenants that were there and the owners who bought property there with the expectation that they would have some kind of enjoyment, given what they viewed when they bought the property, including the Winter Lodge. It did not include this additional use or an expanded use or anything like that. Ms. Grote: Thank you for your comments. We do need to hear a little bit from our real estate division, because.at one point, this was put on the ballot. The citizens of Palo Alto decided that the Winter Lodge and accompanying recreational uses were so important to them that they wanted to see them preserved. That is why the city did not have this become residential, but instead, did a land swap with the person who was the property owner so that this could remain in this use or a similar use. That was a citywide decision. That was not the City Council. Ms. Gee: One final point before you leave that. I think the problem that we are having is that the city continues to try and mitigate. This is a big account. Ms. Abrahams: They are pulling.the wool over our eyes. Ms. Gee: They are trying to mitigate something that is not mitigable. You are talking about an incompatible use between two groups of people, each of which have rights with regard to the use of that particular facility. The idea of expectation on purchase and this bait and switch by the city is really unconscionable. I don’t think residents should come into Palo Alto with the understanding that when they buy the property, the city is going to basically start changing their environment and the land value. I don’t think it is.mitigable. Ms. Grote: I do not see it as a bait and switch, but -- Ms. Gee: Yes it is a bait and switch. Ms. Freeland: As far as the history of the city due to a ballot initiative brought by the citizens of Palo Alto, it exchanged a city-owned site in the baylands for this privately owned site that had the ice skating rink and the former Chuck Thompson tennis facility on it. It was one parcel for both facilities. That was done by a ballot initiative right after the initial plan was to have the entire facility operated by the YMCA. In fact, we had a lease for the ice skating rink for its KITIPCM1NS.31A:~009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 12 operation, and another lease with the YMCA for the tennis courts. They dropped out of the picture, and that is when the courts were left open to public use and not leased to anyone,, just owned by the city. That gives you a little background. From the time of the ballot initiative, the intent for the site has been for commercial, recreational use. Ms. Grote: And that initiative took place when? (It was in 1985.) Let’s hear from the gentleman in the rear. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road: Talking about history, I would like to step back a little. Last year, the City Council reviewed various proposals for use of this site. What.the city council decided was to give them a green light with regard to this proposal. There was no snack bar, and there was no fifth tennis court which is 30 or 40 feet from our windows. Everybody understands 30 or 40 feet from our windows. The City Council understood. There was no fifth court approved. There were many questions about Phase II. The City Council said it was very conceptual. No complete decisions were made. The proposed use permit for Phase I includes four courts. For some reason, they are talking about many other things. Also the City Council discussed the whole matter in regard to the slope of the land, and they agreed to provide some documents and testimony that the recreational use was limited to tennis. They decided that it . ’ does not relate to the other parcel. Also, there were many discrepancies in the acoustical analysis. For example, the acoustical analysis takes into consideration only the noise from when the racket hits the ball. The major source of the noise is people noise. In the winter of 1994, the police were called. They made some noise measurements in the winter time, and they were well above what is allowed..People noise is much louder than tennis noise. They want to fill bleachers. The children who are watching will make all kinds of noise. They did not measure that noise. Also, they did not measure the noise at the condominiums. They said it is protected by a fence. There is no fence. They show a fence surrounding the Winter Lodge. It does not go all the way to the end of the property. They did not measure noise in an appropriate way at all. Ms. Grote: There is a cinder block retaining wall with a wood fence on top of it that does separate the condominiums from the Winter Lodge. ~ Ms. Pease: That whole property !ine is open so there is no soundproofing, clearly. Mr. Bukhan: I just want to reiterate that the every member on the City Council decided on a low key use of this area. They decided that in no way shall there be noise and that the recreation would be worse than it is. Ms. Fisher: The City Council said this would be a truly low intensity use and the impact on the neighbors would be minimized to the greatest possible degree. That is what the intent of the City Council was in 1994. KITIPCMINS.3IA 53009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 13 Mr. Bukhan: Once again, no snack bar according to the City Council. No fifth court. That was pretty much their decision. Ms. Grote: I do need to clarify that as far as I can tell from this plan and in the written documentation, there is no proposal for a snack bar or barbecue facilities. They are not here_. In this area where you are talking about the fact that there is no wood fence, there is a proposal for an eight-foot new wood fence to help mitigate some of that noise. There is the existing cinder block fence and wood fence on this portion. As far as the human voices not being covered in the noise analysis, those are not subject to our noise ordinance. It is mechanical equipment that is subject to the noise ordinance, not human voices, because they are intermittent. Mr. Abrahams: How are you going to protect us in this matter? When the policecame and measuredit, they found a violation. Is there no way to protect us? You are making decisions and we are bound to the decisions for the rest of our lives, and you know that. Mr. Bukan: And that is with four courts. Ms. Pierce: I wish you could come to my house between nine and ten o’clock on winter evenings and hear the music and the yelling and the screaming and the clapping. I go to bed early and I cannot go sleep until after 11 o’clock with all that noise from the Winter Lodge. If this is going to be similar to that, it will really be horrendous. Ms. Grote: These facilities would not be open after dusk. There are no lights. Ms. Fisher: I am retired and I stay there almost all day, so I am going to have to put up with a lot of racket. Ms. Pierce: On the ballot measure, we brought that into discussion, but it was irrele~,ant to the discussion because the ballot measure did not publish this particular parcel. We know about the trade, and we know that the ballot was to allow the city to spend city funds to develop that particular piece of property. That is not to say that we also gave them our carte blanche or a blank check for an expanded use. That is not what that ballot measure said. Mr. Bukan: This whole proposal, as you will recall, isa response to’an RFP by the City of Palo Alto for the operation of a recreational facility for a swim and tennis facility. That is what we are responding to, and we are the ones that won that RFP. Ms. Grote: I need to ask Janet Freeland a question. Was there a fifth court included in that RFP or was there discussion about it? Ms. Freeland.: The proposal that the council looked at in association with the option to lease showed a conceptual plan for Phase I and Phase II. The council made it clear that in awarding KFFIPcM1NS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 14 the option to lease, they were not aI~proving any specific elements of the conceptual plan. They were relying on the option process, including the use permit process, to make sure that whatever went into Phase II (and they did specify that they wanted a low intensity use that would minimize the effect on the neighbors), they were relying on the process through the option. Ms. Grote: So they did not specifically comment on four courts versus five courts? Ms. Freeland: No, they mentioned that the fifth court could cause problems if it was too close to the property, line. There were several issues raised about its but the only thing they absolutely prohibited was tennis court night lighting. The rest of it they left up to the process to determine what environmental impacts or any specific aspects included in Phase I or Phase II would have on the environment in the neighborhood. Ms. Grote: I would like to pointout that the gentleman had mentioned that the new fifth tennis court would be 40 feet from his window. On this plan, it is scaled off as 99 feet from the property line. His windows would then be even farther back from that, so I don’t believe it would be as close as 40 feet. It would be a minimum of 99 feet. Lynn Chiapella~ 631 Colorado Ave.: I have a question about how you arrived at 33 extra trips. It was my understanding from what they proposed at the council originally that they would have to run that facility everyday all day and even including money from t6umaments from the Palo Alto Youth Club. They would have to run those every day and still be in a deficit. So how did they come up with 33 trips if they operate so many hours a day. That is going to be at least 33. Mr. Colonna: Let the transportation division comments stand on that issue. Herb Borock 2731 Byron Street: I was at the City Council meeting a couple of years ago when they initially approved the option for this.. As has been mentioned by a number of.people already, they had a condition that the courts be unlit. No lights. I heard a discussion earlier that the applicant was going to remove the lights that were there, but I have never seen anything in writing to that effect,.so what’ I would like to suggest as a condition of any use permit that removal of the lights and the sealing off of the base and removal of the controls and wires be a condition to implement the City Council decision to remove the lights. That should actually be a part of the conditions of approval that the applicant signs off on when they accept the terms and conditions of the use permit. The second thing I would like to mention, as it has already been brought up, is the history on the site. I believe there has been some confusion caused by the fact that some people had private discussions about what the site is supposed to look like, and some people have only had the benefit of what has been going on in public. Clearly, there are people in the community who always thought that the next phase was going to be tennis courts on the site. In fact, the initiative petitions talked about both an ice skating rink and tennis courts and for a longer term than the KI’I~PCMINS.31A:k30091Vl~D.620 11-07-96 Page 15 current lease. The people who circulated those petitions were afraid that it would be defeated so they went to council members, and the council members crafted a ballot measure that they thought would pass, and actually did pass, which referred only to the ice skating rink. So the situation we have now is that the council decided to do an RFP, and they only asked for responses for the tennis and I guess for the pool. It was only after the fact that they acknowledged that they had a much wider range of options. They felt that since they had already put out the RFP for that particular use, that they were bound to go only for something like that. That is what happened two years ago. I can understand that some people, who even when they asked council members to limit the ballot measure to an ice skating rink, still had in their own minds that this was going to be for tennis courts may be confused and think that that was what was decided upon by the voters. But it was not. That was the private discussions to change things later on. Ms.-Fisher: Do you have the minutes of the council meeting of May 1, 1995? I don’t know if you were here at that time. Ms. Grote: I do not have them. Ms. Fisher: I have a copy of those minutes, and it lists in here several remarks about the fact that the same discussion was taking place that night. The question was whether a fifth tennis court in close proximity to the neighbors was a good idea. He was not optimistic when the item returned to council that the same debate would not take place again. If the Zoning Administrator made the determination through the conditional use permit process and the decision was appealed, it would work its way to the council. Given the debate which had already occurred, we believe it was inevitable that the Council would have to ultimately make a determination. In terms of Phase II, he urged everyone to work more cooperatively. Council Member Anderson opposed the motion because the benefits received by the community of additional courts could be arrived at through alternative ways. An additional recreational area was also not of particular benefit to the Winter Lodge. The area was not dedicated to park land, and therefore, the city could use it in other ways. He as not convinced thata reconciliation would take place be~,veen the neighbors and Winter Lodge. He was impressed by the generous nature of the neighbors in many. instances, particularly those on Ellsworth. Phase II was of eoneem with respect to issues that had been raised. He recognized that a great deal of effort had been expended, but he.was not persuaded that a solution could be reached. Vice Mayor Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase II. The community had been clear during the debate about the desire to have the larger piece of property used for recreationai purposes. In good faith, council has gone in the direction to see that plan come to fruition. However, with respect to the fifth court in its location, she had walked the site and determined that it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase II proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it. She said that even with a filth court, the facility would not generate money. She urged CSI, in its furore planning for Phase II, to continue to work with the neighbors to determine a low intensity recreational use for that comer of the property. Has anyone here been KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 16 contacted by CSI? (No) Council Member Huber said, "The staff report indicates CSI’s Phase I proposal was consistent with council direction. Phase II was conceptual, and both would go through the process." Other Council Members indicated that Phase II was to be of low intensity, and they did not consider what had been proposed-as a done deal. Some had serious doubts regarding the Phase II proposal. Some questioned whether the fees for using the courts could be reduced, etc., etc. We are going to get shared again if we allow Phase II to proceed. All of the people here surrounding that property don’t need shafting. Ms. Barnes: As interesting as those particular council members’ comments were, there were also comments from another prospective. A perspective that said that this was a model situation and that the city should look to it as an example for the future because fewer funds will be available to the city. More options for recreational facilities in the future need to be explored. Also I recall that all of those comments that those council members made were about a different plan. That was a tennis court that was closer to the houses. We have a new plan now. The new court is more towards the middle, of the property and is among the trees. Ms. Grote: So the council had been shown a tennis court nearer to the property line of the condominiums? (Yes) Thank you. To get back to.your question about the trips, this is from our transportation division. It says, "One additional tennis court will produce about 33 new auto trips per week day, .three of which would be during the p.m. peak hour. The maximum dally trip generation would be 38 trips on Sundays. None of these impacts would be noticeable and would be insignificant." That is counting the one additional court. Mr. Colonna: We always calculate it based on the maximum use of all courts in operation at the same time. What Carl Stoffel from the transportation division was commenting on is, full use of that facility with four refurbished courts and one additional court will not create a significant or noticeable impact. Mr. Bukan: Compared to what it is right now with four courts that are not new? Mr. Colonna: Right, compared to what it is now. Ms. Pease: Are they only proposing that there are going to be 33 additional people in that facility? Ms. Grote: "And 38 maximum trips generated. Mr. Bukan: So the facility is currently being used to capacity? Mr. Colonna: No, he would base his comments on a facility that is going to be used at capacity. He would compare that against the existing facility~ There is something called the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study which takes a look at all the possible increases and trip 11-07-96 KI’rIPCMINS.31A:X3009MIDD.620 Page 17 generation. Mr. Bukan: But that 38 trip was for one additional court. brand new courts -- The very fact that we will have four Mr. Colonna: He considered that, as well. Ms Grote: He considered the maximum use with four courts, and the maximum use with five courts, and said there is a 38 trip difference. Mr. Bukan: My point is that we all know there will be a lot more than 38 more trips per day when there are five brand new courts there as opposed to four not new courts. Ms. Fisher: And that is what CSI has proposed in their budget, that they expect people to be . there round the clock from eight in the morning until dusk at night in order to generate the income they are going to need. Mr. Bukan: Do you see my point? Ms. Grote: Yes, I do see your point, but as far as transportation impacts are concerned, as far as what Middlefield Road can accommodate, they are not significant impacts. Ms. Pease: There will be bleachers and benches and a sitting area and a picnic area. There will be a lot of people besides those people who will be playing. Ms.Fisher: Is therea proposal to narrow Middlefield Road to two lanes? Ms.Grote: I don’t believe anyone has made a proposal to narrow Middlefield Road. Ms.Fisher: Oh yes they have, and it is in the works. Ask transportation. Mr. Colonna: I will just state that Carl Stoffel, when he reviewed this for transportation impacts, gets routed a set of plans and all the documentation that goes into the files. So he has full benefit of that, and he takes into consideration the whole project, not just the addition of one court, but the park and the refurbishment of the courts, as well. Ms. Fisher: Lisa, I am getting the impression that you have already decided to approve the conditional use permit and you are just trying to figure out what kinds of conditions to add on top of it. Ms. Grote: That is an incorrect impression, a totally incorrect impression. KITIPCMI~lS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 18 Lynn Chiapella, 621 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: When you evaluate this application, could you accept the four courts and remove all the rest of it, such as the snack bar and the picnic area? Do you have to approve all of these today, or can you approve any single one? Ms. Grote: I have ten days to make a determination. I can approve all of it, or I can approve a portion of it. Or I could deny it completely. Ms. Chiapella: I have some questions. I did sent a letter to you about the noise, etc., which you got, and the need for some kind of mitigation. There were some other things that were not settled. Arco has rights to some of the parking on the side which is allocated for the Winter Lodge. I didn’t know if that had ever been settled or affected this program. When I checked, the parking in that area goes with this proposal. There are three spaces down by Arco, and I would like that part of the parking clarified as to whether it goes with the Arco station. Also, there is a letter box sign that just went up a couple of weeks ~ago, and I don’t know what that applied to. In my computation, the parking seems to be problematic. Also, the drainage on that property has been a real headache for people on Price Court. I don’t know how the drainage works, but now that you are adding 80% of what will be impervious coverage, I cannot figure out what happens on the private side when it leaves the Winter Lodge. Even if they handled their water problems, how is it going to be handled coming back through the back end on private property owned.by who, I don’t know, and then into the city sewers where it backs up and runs down the street. I think someone at the council meeting mentioned that it ran a block or two coming off the Winter Lodge. With 80% of impervious coverage which is now proposed, how is the drainage going to work? That should be examined. Ms. Grote: Actually, our Public Works Division did look at that and did not determine that there would be any kind of a drainage impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Vanderlan: There was a site drainage plan.for the entire site and was part of the delay when we originally had our addition put on in 1990. At that time, we did not know who was going to operate the rest of the facility, so they decided to wait until that was determined. They will do a site plan, which has been done as part of our process here. A site plan has gone to Public Works. Ms. Chiapella: My last point is about the landscaping. A lot of trees appear to be on the back fence, which look like they are cypress, and a couple of other trees. It looks like there is going to be a large loss of trees which now shelter the houses at least at the back. I .would request that if this plan goes through,, that mitigations in terms of plantings be put on all sides, including Matadero Creek, where there is a volunteer project going on to bring to that creek some semblance of life and to protect the residents on Ellsworth by planting a really dense buffer, at a minimum, with that sound wall. If anything is put up there, Such as a sound wall, to also put in a dense buffer such as junipers, whatever gives some noise protection and at least visual protection. There may be a little noise mitigation that way for some areas, particularly if the KITIPCM1NS.31A:k3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 19 sound is bouncing around. That, I believe, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has not objected to when I spoke to them last week. I don’t know if the Winter Lodge proposes to do anything there, but there are quite a few trees, and I would hate to see them removed and replaced with more asphalt. The walls and asphalt will reflect the noise even more. Ms. Grote: Would you point out the trees you are concerned about? Ms. Chiapella: This is a row of cypress that were planted for the mitigation when the swimming club went in. This is a very dense buffer here, and there is a dense buffer down the middle that still exists. There are quite a few trees there. Some may call this a 30-foot-high shrub, but if it was Chop Keenan, it is a tree, and if it was Harold Hohbach, it is.a tree, so I am going to go with its being a tree. Ms. Grote: There is one more person who wishes to speak. Ms.Pease: You made a statement. Are you going to be the sole judge of what goes on here? Is there anyone that you consult with? Ms. Grote: I am the decisionmaker on this use permit. Ms. Pease: I think there should be more than one head on this. Ms. Grote: Based on the comments that I have heard today, it is my inclination to continue this hearing to August 1 st. I would like to consult with our Public Works Division and I would also like to consult with Carl Stoffel on some of the parking questions, such as the Arco space allotment. I would also.like to look into the noise analysis more carefully and talk with the noise consultant on that, so that I will be convinced that we have covered everything that needs to be covered. I would reconvene this public hearing on August 1 st to go over these questions again. At that point, I would feel more comfortable with closing the public hearing and then making a determination. Ms. Gee: A lit of residents were not able to attend this meeting because it is during working hours. I am using my vacation time to be here. I wondered if it is possible to have a hearing after five o’clock so that people can attend. ,~ Ms. Grote: The Zoning Administrator hearings are set up for the afternoon, unfortunately. So it would have to be at three o’clock on August 1st. If someone would like to write in to me to give me their perspective or call, then that would be fine. Ms. Fisher: I do not see that their letters are being read aloud. Ms. Grote: I have not gotten to that point yet. Y.~I’IPCMINS.31A:~3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 20 Ms. Weigner: I would like to mention one thing. Several years ago when we talked about a wall that was supposed to be there to mitigate the noise from the expansion, it started out as a concrete wall between the Winter Lodge parking lot and the condominiums. The concrete wall turned into a wooden fence. This was typical. The landscaping that was supposed to be a noise buffer is just now after four years reaching the top of the fence. This is the kind of neighborly response we have had, the kind of compliance, with the conditions. That is why a lot of us are appearing again. Ms. Jensen: As you look back at all of the requirements, it was an 8-foot masonry fence or an airtight wood fence, which we did build. We cannot make the plants grow any faster than they grow. Ms. Barnes: At this next meeting, will we all reiterate what we have said today, or can we stipulate that it be part of the record? Ms. Grote: There should be a more detailed conversation about some of the issues that have been raised. We do not need to reiterate all of those issues. Noise has been the primary issue, with questions about the noise analysis. There were questions raised about the parking, and a few about drainage, which I would like to confirm. I don’t think that is an issue, but I would like to confirm that with Public Works. Also’ the points about landscaping. Ms. Fisher: Also air pollution from the barbecues. Ms. Grote: We can address some of those issues, but I need to stress that there are no plans for a barbecue area. There is nothing shown on here. Ms. Fisher: When they have parties, the Winter Lodge has barbecues outside. Ms. Grote: This is not the Winter Lodge. This is a tennis facility. This is not to discuss the Winter Lodge. Ms. Wang: Also, I found some rats, big rats because outside, they have food. It is terrible. Ms. Grote: Thank you for your comments. I will read the letters into the public record at the August 1st hearing. This item is continued to August 1st at 3 o’clock. KITIPCMINS.3IA:~3009MIDD.620 11-07-96 Page 21 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING August 1, 1996 Excerpt 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Ms. Grote: This is an application for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (a tennis facility) on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center. There are related site improvements with it. We did have most of the public testimony on June 2.0. If you have already given your public testimony, you do not need to speak again. This is for additional information. At the last hearing, there were about six issues on which I said I would do additional research. Those issues were drainage, parking, traffic, some landscaping, whether or not the Chuck Thompson site was included in the initiative in theearly 1980s, and the noise analysis. As far as drainage is concerned, I did check with Public Works. The applicants have worked with the Public Works Department and have come up with conceptual drainage plans. The final drainage and grading plans will be submitted as part of the building permit approval if this use permit is approved. They would then work with the Public Works Department to finalize those plans. There is nothing on the site that would prohibit the drainage from working correctly. Public Works is confident that the drainage issues will be resolved. As regards parking, the envirrnmental impact assessment stated that there are 98 spaces on site, and that 89 are required to acepmmodate the tenniS"faeility and the Winter Lodge together. So they are in excess of the parking requirement. There is an agreement to allow the Arco station to use three of those parking Spaces, however, the ~site still exceeds its parking requirement. There is also a provision of that agreement that says that during the peak period for use at the Winter Lodge, the Arco station would not be us!ng those three spaces, so there does not appear to be any kind of a future parking problem on this site. The traffic division did revise their informational memorandum to me. They had under estimated the number of total new trips. They now estimate that with five fully functioning courts, there would be about 140 new daily trips. Twelve of those would occur in the evening peak hour. However, the streets surrounding the site are fully able to accommodate the new trips. There is not a capacity problem on Middlefield Road or surrounding roadways. So they are also satisfied that this would not have an adverse traffic impact. As far as the landscaping plans are concerned, someone had raised questions ’about whether or not the parking lot landscaping would be sufficient’to provide shade for ears and people that are in the parking lot. Those final landscape plans will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and they will be held to the same standards that other private developments are held to for landscaping. KIT[PCMINS.31A:~3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 1 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Ave.: Excuse me, but they were supposed to put in a 10-foot landscaped barfer when they got the use permit for the Winter Lodge renovation. There was not a 10-foot landscaped barfer put in. Ms. Grote: I believe they are putting in landscaping now -- Ms. Chiapella: This was several years ago, and it is still not in place. Ms. Grote: We will have the applicants address that. As for the issue regarding whether or not the Chuck Thompson site was part of the original initiative in the early 1980s, I did receive a copy of the wording of the initiative, and it is clearly stated that the Chuck Thompson Center is part of that, as well as the Winter Lodge. As for the noise analysis, several concerns were raised regarding the methodology used and some of the results of that. Jeff Pack is here to address the noise analysis and to give a summary of his methodology and the conclusions that he came to. I have a couple of specific questions that I will ask about ball machines and an additional fence on the site. That pretty well summarizes where we are, to date. If there is anyone who would like to add comments that were not made at the first hearing, we can take that public testimony now. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, Palo Alto: i live right behind the proposed fifth tennis court. I went to my back door door this morning with a ruler, and I measured the distance from the existing fence, which is my fence and my neighbor’s fence, and the existing tennis court. I found that the reading is 19 feet, and the landscaping is about six feet. Then I tried to picture where the proposed sound wall would be. I find that unless the Winter Lodge people tear up the existing residential fences to install the sound wall, otherwise, it will have to be built somewhere between that 19-foot space, leaving a space between our fence and the sound wall which will not only seem awkward but also may kill’existing trees, besides the question of how much sound can be blocked effectively when tennis tournaments will be held on the fifth court, and the fourth, from my perspective. I have been practicing Tai Chi with a group in Palo Alto and find that it is not only a quiet exercise which strengthens this over-the-hil! body, I am 44, and I have progressed in a fundamental way, but also takes my mind away from my busy life and restores it in a calm and peaceful way.. Al.though it has all these benefits, they are very difficult to remember and stick to, so it would be helpful to use the site for the proposed fifth court for group practicing, besides other quiet exercises. John K. Abraham: I want to make additional comments on the sound study, which is of particular interest to me. I have submitted to you in my letter of July 22 a list of proposed errors in the sound report. I do not know if this is the time to go into every one, but the chief issues are that there is a misprint, I think you could call it, concerning the fourth bullet on Page 4 which, as it is written, incorrectly indicates that the sound level of the noise for the western neighbors would go down. I think there is no question about it, but I do want to make it official that it is the same now as it was before. That should be corrected to be fair about the record. The Second error in the report is that I do not believethat the ambient study, which was said to be an ambient KI’I~PCMINS.3IA:~30091VIIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 2 study, was in fact an ambient study. When I talked to Mr. Pack on June 21 st, the day after the hearing, he informed me that people do not play tennis there anymore, and the fact of the matter is that he set up his microphones for a period of three days, specifically with the idea that the noise issue Would be absent. In other words, he was testing for ambient sound. I am pointing out that people play tennis there all the time on weekends and various sporadic events, not anything like the proposed level. So my basic statement is that it was not really an ambient level that he was recording. There were people playing tennis there Saturday and perhaps Sunday. I don’t know how many people were playing as I did not record it at the time. The third objection I have is that voice noise is not considered at all in his report. There is nothing in his report about voice noise. It is, in fact, a factual problem that we. have to live with. Ms: Grote: That is repeat testimony that you made at the previous hearing. Mr. Abraham: All right. The next point is that he uses a concept of average noise. I object strongly to that here. Average noise is not what we get. There is no filter there.. If there were a filter or a transformation that could transform all the hits, the squeaks and all of the other noise into a nice white noise filter, if that is what we got, that would be wonderful. In fact, we did not get an average noise. It is a statisticalaverage. It is a statistical argument that he .is talking about, and that is not appropriate for the people who actually live there. I object also to the rather secretive nature of the reference to Reference C, which is the Brookside Study, which is the basis for everything in this report. I tried to get a copy of that, and Mr. Pack would not give me a copy. He would not even tell me where I could find it. I found a copy in the Saratoga public hearing. So it is included and is in the record. . , Ms. Grote: I have that. Mr. Abraham: Also, unaddressed in the original report is how much additional noise the western neighbors will get from the reflection offthe north wall if it is added, as proposed. He. has 56 decibels for ball hits already. There will be additional noise reflecting off the wall, and I do want to make sure that that is added into the record. We get that noise, and we will get it if there is a wall put up to the north there. It will raise it above his averages that are stated in his report. Those are the main points I have’. I do feel that it is important that you give that a fair hearing to the fact that neighbors actually have to live there. We not only get increased maximum levels, but we also get an increased amount of noise even if the maximum stays the same. Mr. Stoffel reports indicates a 5,3 factor. of increase in the traffic. In other words, the traffic involved goes up by a factor of five. That gives some idea, in my opinion, as to the amount of additional noise exclusive of the maximum. So it is not ju’st a peak but a more constant noise throughout the day. I object to that, which is, related to my objection to the average, which does not really address that problem. Ms. Grote: Thank you for your comments. I would now like to refer to Mr. Jeffrey Pack, who KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 3 did the noise analysis. Please give a summary of that noise analysis, and then speak specifically to whether or not it would further noise, should there be a fence built along the creek. Will noise be reflected from that? Please, also address the issue about the impact of tennis balls being hit on the site. Jeffrey Pack, Edward Pack Associates, Sunnyvale: I am an acoustical engineer, and I was hired by the Winter Lodge to take a look at the potential noise impacts from the relocation of four tennis courts and the addition of one tennis court. To my knowledge, those tennis courts are not used very often. I can see people shaking their heads, so I do not know how often those courts are used. The best data I had to use were from a similar study that I did for the Brookside Swim and Racket Club in Saratoga, which is a very similar facility. I went out to that site on a weekday and on a Saturday. I took measurements of people playing tennis for both maximum noise levels and average noise levels. Granted, the average noise lev.els to Mr. Abraham may not seem appropriate, but it is mostly for informational and comparative purposes. We use the maximum noise levels of the various tennis playing sources for the evaluation against the noise ordinance. So we used more than what we had to to give you as much information as possible. We found various levels of noise sources, such as the ball being hit, the shoes squeaking on the tennis court when someone slides, etc. Those are the two .loudest things that occur. As regards people talking, some people are going to scream, or you get kids out there playing, and that is all part of human nature. It is difficult to quantify from one location to another as it is such a large human factor. The tennis playing itself also has a large human factor. Some people hit the ball harder than others. You are going to get older people playing who will be louder than some little kids playing, again from hitting the balls harder, running faster, or whatever it is." So we try to generate a realistic but worst case scenario for evaluation purposes. . We took the Brookside tennis data, applied it to this site, multiplied it by five, because of the five courts in cases they are all going on all at once, and when you combine noise levels, you cannot realistically combine a maximum noise level, like someone hitting the tennis ball, for instance, because the odds of more than one person hitting a ball at exactly the same time is.very remote. So those noise levels would not be additive. The averagenoise levels, over agiven period of time, can be additive, because you are looking, at a longer time duration. So you do add these noise levels together. They are arithmetically added. It is logarithmic kind of thing that gets a little more complicated mathematically, as Mr. Abraham can attest to. I think he has already figured that one out. So we just took these noise levels and compared them to the limits of the city’s noise ordinance. We determined that there are noise excesses at the north property line, but there are not noise . excesses at the houses on the west side of the creek. So we applied a sound mitigation in terms of a sound wall, which does not have to be a masonry wall such as on a freeway. It can be made out of wood. It can be a modification of the existing fence, whatever it takes to make this barrier an airtight barrier to provide the necessary sound reduction to meet the noise ordinance requirements. That is basically what was done. KITIPCMINS.31A:~3009MIDD.II I 11-7-96 Page 4 If you like, I can address Mr. Abraham’s comments in order. Regarding the sound report, yes the sound report does have an error. It was my error, and I am very sorry about that. I just transposed some numbers from the fourth bullet on Page 4. I believe I put down 47 decibels, and I think it is supposed to be 51 decibels or something to that effect. That is an error that has been corrected. The city knows about it. Again, I am sorry about that. In terms of the ambient study, there are a couple of different ways to look at the ambient conditions. If we go out to the site and we measure the noise levels for a long period of.time for a day, a couple of days, or whatever it is~ and there is nothing going on, that gives us a very low ambient noise level. The lowest ambient we read over the three-day period was 41 dba. The city has a lower limit of 40 to describe an ambient, so even if the ambient went down to 39, wE would still have to 40 as the basis for the noise ordinance limit. Since wemeasured 41, and we used 41. If, for some reason, people were playing tennis that whole time, and we were creating a higher ambient level, let’s say it was 50 as the lowest ambient while people were playing, that would raise the allowable limit for the new use. So instead of having a limit of 56, thelimit would be 15db above that 50, so the limit would be 65. You would get no sound wall, and they would be allowed to be much noisier than they are allowed to now. So it is best for you for the ambient to be as low as possible for the use of the noise ordinance. Again, vocal.sounds are very hard to quantify because of the human factor involved. People are going to play and people are going to make noise. Sometimes people playing tennis will be v.ery quiet, and sometimes you get a couple of kids out there screaming and yelling, and what can you do about it. Actually, I don’t know, is the noise ordinance applicable to people speaking? Ms. Grote: The way it is written currently, no, it is not. Mr. Pack: I have already discussed average noise and the Brookside study. Regarding reflections off the north property barrier, that is included in the evaluation and reflections off of that. Normally, a perfectly reflective barrier will give you a three decibel increase in noise. Mr. Abraham: That was not included in your rePort. Mr. Pack: It is included in the analysis. You should be addressing your questions to the city. There was a wall already there to begin with. Changing the existing fence to a sound wall is not going to change its reflective components by an appreciable margin, whether it is made out of wood or stone or brick. If it was made out of a highly absorbative material, like fiber glass or polyurethane foam, yes, there would be a difference, but again, that difference is a very small number. It earmot be any more than three decibels, which to the human ear, you cannot tell the difference of three decibels. It is a barely detectable change. That is about it. Are there any other questions? Ms. Grote: Yes, regarding the north property line, are you talking about the property line that is adjacent to the creek? Mr. Pack: No, that is the west line. KI’I]PCM1NS.3IA:~30091Vl]DD.81 11-7-96 Page 5 Ms.Grote: I see.. I needed to get the plans in front of me. OK. Mr.Pack: The north property line is the one where I proposed the sound barrier. Ms.Grote: Just the back property line. Mr. Pack: Right. Also putting a wall along the creek is something we did not analyze, because there was not a noise excess to do that. It would take some time to analyze that to figure out how tall of a wall would be necessary to reduce the tennis court playing by X number of decibels or whatever that criterion happens to be. If you are looking for total inaudibility, you are not. looking at a feasible wall. It would be something that was probably 25 or 30 feet high. That just doesn’t work. Mr. Abraham: Then if it is not going to wgrk, I object to granting the conditional use permit, because he has exceedences over the limit. Ms. Grote: I believe that what his noise analysis is saying is that you do not need the noise wall along the creek in order to meet the noise ordinance. My question had been, if you put a noise wall on the creek to further reduce noise, even though you may not technically need it, what would that do? Mr. Pack: It would depend on how quiet you wanted it. If someone brings up the scenario of total inaudibility, that would have to be a very tall barrier. Your ears can detect a lot of different things. Some people can be very sensitive, and they are listening for the slightest little things. If they want to hear someone playing tennis that is a couple of hundred feet away, they will hear it. That takes it out of the realm of inaudibility, if one person can hear it. So to guarantee total inaudibility, that is technically a very difficult thing to achieve. If you have a quantifiable criterion of, ~ay, 35 dba maximum or 40 dba maximum, that is something that can be designed to, but you are still looking at a very, very tall barrier. Ms. Grote: SO a standard height barrier of eight to ten feet would not bring down the noise level any perceptible amount. Mr. Pack: I cannot tell you that without running the calculations. Yes, it would make a noticeable difference. Something eight to ten feet tall would make a noticeable difference, but by how much, I just do not know. It depends upon where the barrier is put. If it is put dose to the tennis courts or if it is put dose to the homes or somewhere in between, the location of the barrier is also important. It is not as important as the height, but it is still a factor that we have to consider. Mr. Abraham: What I would like to point out is that it is possible to quantify voice noise. I have done it. Again, nobody may want to talk about it, but the fact of the matter is that it is a major part of the problem. KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009M1DD.81 11-7-96 Page 6 Ms. Grote: As a general question to you, Mr. Abraham, what professional qualifications might you have as an acoustical engineer or. sound consultant? Mr. Abraham: I have a master’s degree in physics. My chief complaint is against his inference. I have background.in mathematical statistics. I am entitled to argue with his inconsistencies. I cannot run a sound machine. I am not claiming that I am an acoustical engineer. But a lot of these records can be interpreted by someone who isn’t an acoustical engineer. Ms. Grote: As far as ball machines are concemed, do they generate a significant amount of noise? Are you familiar with ball machines? Did you cover that in your other studies? Mr. Pack: The other studies that I have done did not incorporate ball machines. I do not have any data on ball machines. The only experience that I have with them is that I recently lived in a condominium, and the tennis court was right outside my front door. The side of the court was about 30 feet from my front door. There was a tennis pro that gave lessons all the time, and he used a ball machine quite a bit. It does make noise. It is noticeable. It sounds different than a person hitting a ball, because it is more of a mechanical sound. It does not make that slap or thud that you hear when the racket hits the ball. It is not as high a level, typically, depending upon how hard the person hits the ball. From ball serve to ball serve, it is more constant. When someone hits the ball, that varies quite a bit, depending on how they hit the ball. So what you can expect to hear is going to be the same, but I cannot tell you what that level is. To me, it sounds like it is not as high a level as a person hitting the ball back. Ms. Grote: So not as high, but more constant. Mr. Pack: In terms of what it sounds like, it sounds the same each time, whereas with a person hitting the ball, it sounds a little different each time, but again, I have not done a study of ball machines to tell you exactly what it is going to be like. Ms. Grote: I have a question for the representatives of the applicants. Would there be an amenability on your part to provide a sound wall, should it be shown to be useful in a further study, someplace along the creek? Would that be something you are willing to do? Ms. Barnes: Yes, if that would produce a quantifiable effect. We want the neighbors to be happy, and if this is going to damp down the sound and will help, sure. Again, we were talking about the placement and whether it is on this side of the creek or the other side of the creek. I would like to see the data, and if the data lead to that conclusion, absolutely. While I have the microphone, I want to respond to the woman who talked about Tai Chi. That is exactly the kind of use that we are hoping the park area will have. We have really been thinking about that in terms of quiet activities, passive activities, and I am also sure (although I am speaking a little out of turn here) that if there are courts that are not in use, you can have access to those as well for a larger group. That is the. type of quiet activity that we want to have going on in the park area. Ms. Natalie. Fisher: I get the impression that the applicants do not understand what the residents KI~PCMINS.3[A:~3009M]DD.81 11-7-96 Page 7 are experiencing. They think that we are exaggerating. I have been living in my home for about 20 years. When I moved in, the Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center was in full use. Now, four of the courts are right behind our back yards across the creek. All of us on the street have our bedrooms in the rear of our houses. I have two of the courts directly behind me. I know what it was like when there was a private swim and tennis club there, and I know what it has been like now. I think I have a pretty good idea, based on my experience, what it will be like in the future. Even when the tennis and swim club was in use, I don’t think it was as heavily used as perhaps the new proposal is, but it was impossible for us to use our back yards because there was a lot of playing, a lot of heavy hitting. As a matter of fact, we were always collecting balls. I still have a collection of balls, because there is just a chain link fence which is quite tall, but people can hit quite hard. It is a very loud noise. I don’t care what the decibel readings are, what the machine that did the recordings say. I can tell you it is a loud, constant noise that- goes on hour after hour. "That is the noise of the tennis rackets hitting the balls. I have never been bothered by the squeaking shoes. I never heard that. And there is a lot of whooping and yelling. People can’t play games like that and be quiet about it. It is not a chess game. There is a constant amount of yelling and screaming and whooping. It happens a lot, more often than it doesn’t. For the last few years, there have only .been casual players, probably people who live in the neighborhood. The court has been used maybe 10% of the time. Usually in the morning before going to work, I am woken up at 8 o’clock most mornings, week days and weekends, by maybe one match, and then maybe a few hours later, there will be another match. It has been relatively peaceful. As annoying as it is to be woken up at 8 in the morning after you finally have retired£ it is still not constant. The match will end, and one can fall back asleep. With the new proposed uses, we are going to have constant noise from maybe even earlier than 8 a.m. because people with keys can start whenever they want to. There is nobody to say you can’t start until eight. We are going to have constant, loud noise. It is going to be hell for us; it is just going to wreck the quality of our lives and make it almost impossible for us to sell our homes. One final point on the parking. When the Winter Lodge has their special events, the parking is already inadequate. They park all along Middlefield Road and in the big church parking lot across the street and all along the neighborhood streets. We see these cars, and we always know. As a matter of fact, they need somebody there to direct the traffic. It is quite congested and dangerous. So those parking lots at the site are woefully inadequate. For special events, the Winter Lodge patrons have been using all the streets and every parking lot they can find. So I have to take issue with the implication that the parking there is adequate. But I am not concerned about the parking or the traffic personally. I am concerned about the use of my home. My other neighbors along the creek feel the same way. They are all scared to death. It is not liveable when those courts are in full use. Ms. Grote: If the’applicants do put in the sound wall, and it can be shown that that would reduce the sound an appreciable amount, would that go any distance in satisfying your concerns? Ms. Jane Pease: I really don’t think that is feasible. At my house, I already have a substantial wooden fence. It doesn’t keep the noise out. Also, we have trouble, because of the creek, with noise coming from our own street. I notice the noise because I have dual pane windows, so they KI~PCMINS.31A:\3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 8 are very airtight, but I also have a skylight, and I notice that all the noise that comes up comes up and over. It is not noise that is coming horizontally across. It is noise that is being projected up and in. So no matter how tall a sound wall you build, it is not going to help. I think it would even increase the noise from our street coming in through the backs of the houses. Ms. Fisher: That comment just reminded me of something. I used to live on Layne Court, which is a couple of blocks away. That apartment that I lived in had a skylight, and I used to hear this screaming and yelling, and I never knew where it-came from until I moved onto Middlefield Road next to the ice skating rink. It was coming from the ice skating rink, and it travels right over and up. It can go blocks away. I do have a question about the transportation figures and the daily trucks. That is a concern for me. What was that figure again? Ms. Grote: It was 140 daily new trips with 12 during the peak hour., However, the capacity of the roadway is well able to accommodate that. Ms. Pease: Because we have a very hard time, as it is now, getting in and out of our driveway with the traffic. Maybe there needs to be another traffic light or something put in there. Ms. Grote: That was not a recommendation from the traffic division. Ms. Pease: We have had a lot of accidents from people exiting and entering the driveway. Ms. Pease: I wanted to elaborate on that, that it is well used. You mentioned during the evening peak hour, but the biggest problem is in the morning and the fact that there is a school that is right across the street. So when they let out between 2:30 and 3:30, there is a really big traffic problem right in that particular area.. Ms. Grote: Still the most heavily used peak hour is in the evening between four and six or seven p.m. So it is not actually whenthe school lets out but rather, when people are coming and going from work. Ms. Pease: I personally have trouble in the morning and when school is in session during that afternoon, and less trouble at night. Maybe the traffic flows better during that time, but from my own personal observation, that is when there is more of a problem. In the morning, that is when parents, are dropping their children off, and in the afternoon around that time is when they are coming to pick them up. There are several entrances and exits there. Keith Clark: I am a long-time teacher in the district and still a tennis coach at Paly. I used to swim at Chuck Thompson’s when I.’had a hip replacement and was swimming there, and then I played tennis with a group of men. I was.the recreation direetor in Otto, Illinois for ten years. I have never heard that tennis is a noisy sport. I did not hear any noise when I played there. With the swimming pool, yes, and at night, I never played at night, although there were lights there and there was play there at that time. I would like to take people to Rinconada right now or anytime this afternoon or tonight. There are people living right across the street, and there are KIT]PCMIN S.31A:k3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 9 lights, and those go on until 11 o’clock at night. There won’t be lights on these courts, and you can certainly set a time in the morning when play would start. I am a firm believer that tennis is one of the best sports that we have for boys and girls. I see members of the tennis club here who are about my age. I am giving my wife tennis lessons. We play over there now, but the court is in such bad shape that not many people play. I just don’t understand all these comments about noise, the whooping, etc. This morning I talked to a group of about 20 girls from Castilleja. There wasn’t noise. As far as ball machines, I have a ball machine. There are two kinds. One that is quiet, and my assistant, Laura Buckholtz has one of those. I have one that does shoot out, and it does make noise. It doesn’t mean that you would ha~,e to have a ball machine. Actually, most of us would prefer not to use a ball machine. We live in Midtown, and I think it would enhance Midtown. Poor Midtown is losing Bergmarm’s, my wife’s favorite store, and all these places. This would really enhance the area if they make a nice park there. We tried to get courts at Greet Park about 30 years ago. We had plans, but because of a wind study out there, the city decided not to build them. There are certain times when it is very difficult to get on a tennis court. I will be teaching the girls in the fall. We take all of the Paly courts. A lot of adults come, and I send them over to Rinconada, in case they can get on over there. I just don’t understand all of this noise and whooping and hollering. If there are going to be authorities there, you are not going to have this. Swimming, yes. There was a swimming pool, and there were lights, and they played at night. We need a roller blading place. How would you like to have roller blading over there? I have to go out to Paly and get them offthe courts because it is not good for them. Roller blading is getting very popular, and I think the city is going to be forced to build a roller blading park somewhere. So go over to Rinconada. There are people right across the street. They are there late at night. There are school programs there, because Jordan has to use them since their courts are in such bad condition. From a recreational standpoint, we do not have the number of courts that a city of this size should have. Mountain View has two big tennis complexes. We do not have any. My last point is that it is a very good little situation there for clinics, particularly for working with boys and girls. Thank you. Ms. Grote: Before taking additional public testimony, I have a list of questions that I would like to ask. I have spoken briefly with Linda Jensen who had mentioned that the hours of operation wouldmost likely be 8 a.m. to dusk. Is that something you are in agreement with? (Answer - yes) How would you anticipate enforcing that? I know that people have keys, but is there going to be someone on the site at all times who would ensure that people do not use their keys before 8 o’clock? Ms. Bames: For nine months of the year, our people will be there atthat time, so they would be able to enforce that. During the summer months, we are not there that early. I would think that adult tennis players would be responsible enough to be able to read the signs. When they buy their keys, there will be a list of rules and regulations for those courts. Ifthey did start abusing them, we might try to think of other ways around it, but knowing our neighbors, they would probably let us know and would probably let the police know that the tennis players were abusing the rules. Ms. Grote: Would there be any provisions in those rules that if someone were to violate the rule more than once or twice that they would then have their key taken away? KITIPCMINS.31A:k3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 10 Ms. Barnes: Sure, that could be done. Ms. Grote: Do you have any kind of a liaison, someone who is available, perhaps yourself, for the - neighbors to contact if there are violations of conditions? Ms. Barnes: _We do not yet have control of the property, but once we do, they could always call the Winter Lodge. If we needed to do so, we could always set up a more formal situation. Ms. Grote: That has been a part of other use permits, a condition that require having a neighborhood liaison or someone there who can respond immediately to issues and problems. Ms. Chiapella: What about during non-business hours? One can call the Winter Lodge when they are open, but what. about non-business hours before 8 in the morning when people are playing. Would our only recourse be to call the police, or will there be someone we could call that early at the Winter Lodge? Ms. Barnes: That is what I was just saying. During the nine months that we are open, neighbors can call the Winterlodge. Otherwise a message would have to be left and followed up on later. Ms. Chiapella: What would happen during the summer? Ms. Barnes: During the summer, that is when we could set something up if she thought that was necessary. ,Ms. Grote: So there would be someone available during business hours? (Yes) Ms. Fisher: The point is to avoid calling the police. My experience has been, and what has happened in the past when there was a club there, is that the police are slow to respond to people who called. A number needs tobe available that we can call during nonbusiness hours. We had night playing during those days. We had people playing until 12, 1,2 o’clock in the morning, and other people coming in at 6 and 7 in the morning. I have had that experience. Even 8 o’clock in the morning is rather early to have to be woken up seven days a week. Who do we call if somebody wakes us up at 5 or 6 in the morning, or 7 in the morning? That is what I want to know. Ms. Grote: I think you would probably have to wait until business hours, and then call to say there was a violation. Ms. Fisher: Then we would have to call the police to stop them. Ms. Grote: That is why I am asking if there are some provisions in the agreement that the applicant has with those who hold keys, and if they find out that there has been a violation by a particular person more than once or twice, then their key would be taken away from them. Mr. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street: How will they be identified? All we can do then is to call the KITIPCMINS.3IA:B009MIDD.81 I 1-7-96 Page 11 police. That is what we have had to do in the past. Ms. Pease: Let us at least have a number where we can contact someone and they can be the ones to get up and go out instead of the police checking or us going out. Ms. Barnes: I think the situation is going to be much improved by the fact that there is a gate and a lock and there will be rules. Ms. Fisher: That is the way it was under the previous Chuck Thompson Swim Club. We had problems we don’t want repeated. We have had this experience already. Ms. Barnes.: What I hear is that we are willing to meet those needs, whether it be that we have someone available by phone after eight a.m., and that means that someone could possibly get away with it.once or twice and lose their privileges, or if need be, we could then move that forward if the police feel they are getting called out too much. We could then say, alright, we will have a 24-hour number. I think we are looking ahead now to things that we don’t know are going to happen. Ms. Pease: They have happened before, and I don’t see why they won’t happen again. Ms. Barnes : So we are willing to meet those needs as they come up. I think, that having a liaison -- Ms. Pease: I think you should at least have a respons,ible person who could be on call 24 hours a day if problems come up. Ms. Grote: I believe what they have agreed to is having someone on call during business hours and during hours of operation for the courts. If it appears that there are, in fact, many violations that are occurring, then we will revisit it. Ms. Chiapella: But there is no way for us to identify who those people are, so it would be a regulation without teeth, whereas if we call somebody and they go out and identify the people and talk to them on the spot, then they can enforce the rules. It sounds like they are. not willing to enforce their rules because of the inconvenience of perhaps getting a phone call at 6 or 7 in the morning. Ms. Barnes: It is very clear, from where I stand, that the Winter Lodge is willing to do what it takes to keep the courts closed. What is happening at this point in the meeting is that we are escalating well what if, well what if, well what if. So I think we can come to an agreement here that the Winter Lodge will, at the very least, have a name and a number that is available during the extent of the Winter Lodge hours and also the extent of the tennis court hours. As for the police, as much I do not want to over use them and we need to protect them, it is their job to come out when people are breaking the law. If someone is out on the tennis courts at six a.m. and we call the police, they get an I.D. Winter Lodge knows about it at 8 a.m. that morning, and they are dealing with that person. Then he or she will have one or no more chances to do that. KI’I]PCMIIqS.31A:k3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 12 Ms. Fisher: We do not know, who you are. Ms. Barnes: I’m sorry. I am Marni Barnes. I am working with the Winter Lodge on the design of this whole recreational area, and the park design, in particular. I see the meeting escalating and spinning off, whereas up to this point~ it has been very productive. Ms. Grote: As another possibility, would the applicants consider having an employee come out at 8 in the morning and open the gate, and have people come in at that point? Ms. Bames: Have a double lock system? Linda Stebbins Jensen: I don’t think that would be a very effective way to take care of the situation. Like Mami said, we don’t even know if this will be a problem. Ms. Grote: You will have a sign posted? Ms. Bames: Absolutely. Ms. Grote: What are the hours of tennis lessons, and how often do you think you will be giving them? Ms. Barnes: In our proposal, we guessed that hours might be something like ten to noon, and then two to four. These are for kids’, lessons in the summer. I am thinking that adults would want to use keyed play before work, at lunch time, and after work. Ms. Grote: You are anticipating that this will be a 12-month facility, is that correct? Ms. Barnes: It is a year-round facility, however, the group lessons that will be given will be given only in the summer. Because of the Winter Lodge emphasis in the winter, we need to keep that a compatible use. Ms. Grote: And how many tournaments do you expect per year? Ms. Barnes: We would not necessarily be involved in tournament play. That would be the tennis club’s decision. I will let someone from that group speak. Kay Carey: I am the immediate past president of the Palo Alto Tennis Club and a resident of Palo Alto, and a tennis player at Terman where you are not allowed to play before 8 a.m. That rule there is rarely violated. The courts are posted and the players are very aware that if ybu come out early, you are breaking the rules. They have been respectful of it. We play there a lot around 8 o’clock, and do not see people sneaking on. So I think there has been a chance in the tennis climate. At any rate, the tennis club has been supporting this proposal very strongly. First of all, there actually is a shortage of courts in Palo Alto, and the reason that these particular courts are not used is that they are not resurfaced and are not in good condition. We had very much wanted tO have these tennis KITIPCMINS.3IA:~3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 13 courts be a center for what we call adult league play. That involves two teams coming out from six o’clock until 8 o’clock in both the spring and the fall. It is typically a total of 16 players. What they do is to have five matches. That was one of the reasons why having five tennis courts was so important for us. The city said the courts could not be lit, and since they cannot be lit and you have to play five matches, and most of the people who participate in the adult league work, in order to get in your five matches, you do need five tennis courts. That was one reason for saying we have a very critical need for five courts. The important thing about adult league play is that this program has only been existence for the last five or six years. There. are quite a few organized activities for children and teenagers, but getting adults out on a regular basis in tennis had been confined primarily to tournaments. Instead, this is something where you go through a competition season and you play once a week on a team. This has increased participation incredibly. Back in the early 1990s in northem California, the membership was 6,000 people. ~ Now it is 25,000 people. It is really bringing people back out on the courts. Palo Alto has a very large tennis population, and the majority of the members in our club are Palo Alto residents. So this is fulfilling a very big community need. Ms.Grote: So this would be 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. every night? Ms.Carey: It is generally Monday through Thursday with a different team each night. Ms.Grote: And there are 16 people involved? (Yes) And that goes on for how many months? Ms. Carey: It typically starts in late April and goes through July. Then the fall season starts, I believe, in October, and that is usually a few matches. I would Say the level of usage is a third of what it is in the spring. Ms. Grote: How long does that last? Ms. Carey: Until February or March. Typically, those matches are played either on a weekday afternoon from one until three, or on a Saturday afternoon. Then in addition, our club would also be asking that this be able to be used as a tournament site for a tournament a month for approximately five months. It is a two-day event. The tournaments typically start at eight a.m., and they conclude usually by three or four o’clock. Ms. Grote: And is that a two-day event which would be once a month for five months? Ms. Carey: Yes, we actually hold closer to nine tournaments, but we have to work out the coordination with the Winter Lodge as to when their courts would also be available to us. Ms. Grote: Would those be week days or weekends?, Ms. Carey: It is just a weekend for the tournament. The Winter Lodge has also proposed that it include a parklike setting. Palo Alto, at the moment, simply does not have tennis facilities like that where we would have outdoor facilities with electricity, where we can use it to serve coffee and Krl]PCMINS.31A 53009MIDD,81 11-7-96 Page 14 .selwe food, so this is .all a very important addition to the community. .Jack Morton: I am one of the founders of the Tressider community skating. As important as the neighbors’ concerns are, I also wanted to reintroduce into the record the thousands of Palo Altans that voted for the original proposal. As we are weighing things that the community needs to compromise on, we also should remember that there are very many people in Palo Alto who are looking forward to getting the full utilization of a Midtown recreation facility. When the voters agreed to undedieate a central piece of bayland parkland, they did so with the expectation that we would have a community-accessible recreation complex. This is the final step in that process. ,I feel that the Winter Lodge proposal has tried to look at the noise ordinance levels, and look at.usage and design proposal for the site that is responsible both to the people who live nearby, but also to the rest of Palo Altans to whom that facility is ultimately their.property, since it is a.city facility .and will be an extension of the City’s recreation program. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: I am going to submit these comments which I have written, and just want to pick out one or two. I did bring a map to show you, because I do think that the sound wail has to be examined fairly carefully. The reason is that the houses across the creek, as you can see, are only approximately 40 feet away from the noise generation, yet the sound wall will be for the condominiums, which are 290 feet away. So I think the noise generation at that side, the creek side, will be very loud. You have the addition of a concreted, channel which may exacerbate the noise because it picks up that echo. That probably should be analyzed. It has a rather unique setting in that particular aspect. The sound wall may be of help in that particular area. So that is the first point that should be examined. The second thing I want to address.is the trees along the creek which I guess we agree are :going to come out so that they can build the new tennis facility and realign the courts. I would like to ask that if you do remove those trees, which do provide some shade for Matadero Creek and there still is wildlife in Matadero Creek, that a three-for-one replacement of the trees or some kind of landscaping be put along there so that it is not just a hot, dirty looking area, which it has been, because it has not been cared for recently by whoever owns it, which I think is probably the city, but it is rather under contention as to who should take care of it. So I would ask that the sound wall along there, or at least the channel or the fences, be landscaped in some way to provide some kind of respite or shade along the creek so that the wildlife restoration project, which is currently under way on Matadero Creek, can help reinforce that project and show that the city is also cooperating in that project. The last thing is I do feel that the fifth cOUrt is excessive. Without that fifth court, you actually could realign ’the four courts and move them slightly towards the center, making a more peaceful, compatible surrounding for all involved. It is kind of a compromise between what is wanted on the maximum side for the tennis group and what is wanted by the residents. I don’t think.there is a perfect solution here. I do think the fit’da court is going to exacerbate the problem. Ira.larger buffer were left between residences and the facility, perhaps that would help abate the problem. Thank you. Wei Wang: I am the bnly person from the north side of the tennis court, which is Price Court.. I would like to let people know, since it seems like they don’t understand that the distance between KITIPCMINS.3IA:k3OOgMIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 15 my house and the court is less than any of the west side or the east side. From my house’to ~the fence is about 15 feet. From that fence to the court is about 19 feet, so it is less than 40 feet. Right now, I can hear every beat of the bails when anyone is playing on the third or fourth court. Then this gentleman says we should go to Rinconada Park and stand there and listen. The difference is that these five courts will be used as top quality tennis courts, and there will be tournaments there. So that Will be a big difference there. Also, I have had every neighbor living on my. side of the street sign a petition to object to putting in this fifth court there because of the noise. Glenn Kelly: I am a tennis pro, and I have just a few thoughts or suggestions on addressing some of the noise problems. One is that the courts are pretty run down fight now, as everyone knows. One’ofthe things that has not been mentioned is that the wind screens are also worn down. They act as a wonderful sound barrier, even though their primary purpose is to see the ball better and stop the wind. They also act as a sound barrier. They are made of a fiberglass material, sort of a sound absorbing material, so when those are all in place, that will help in all directions. Another thought or suggestion is that when the ball machines are in use, since the proposal is to turn some of the tennis courts around, the ball machines could be facing Middlefield Road instead of facing toward the neighbors fight now. That might be a big help. There are also sound absorption or sound locking boxes for tennis ball machines. Those can be put behind or around and over the ball machines. That would help in insulating them. Sometimes we have pet peeves, and they have been objected to over and over and over again. Whenever they come up, we fly offthe handle. I kinda suspect that maybe, that is what is happening here with the noise issue. I am the culprit that dragged the ball machine out to the courts. I checked ’ my records just to see when the last time was that I had it out there. It was last August, over a year ago. So maybe some of these sounds are not as bad as we think they are, and we just are making them up in our heads. As a community member, you are all going to have to realize that we all have to put up with certain things to enjoy the advantages. Someone has to live by the fire department and police department. None of us like it, but to enjoy those conveniences, we have to. MS. Wang: But the residents won’t get the benefits. The residents around those courts will only get the disadvantages, the pain. MS. Grote: Your comments have been noted. . Shirley Gee, 844 Prospect Avenue. Oakland: I own a condominium that is over in the terrace side. ’As you face the lodge, it is on the right side. I would like to pull the discussion back a little bit, and I cannot seem to make this clear, but we are talking about a lot of details here and we are talking about a lot, of mitigating circumstances. We are trying to mitigate situations so that we can make thisparticular situation bearable and liveable: .I always have to step back and think for a minute that we are in the middle of a conditional use permit request. Part of the reason we have the conditional use permit process is because it is a process by which we do something different from what that area has been designated for. I think we need to remember that that particular area is predominantly zoned for residential living, high density residential living. The city made that decision ten years KfrlPCM]NS.31A:~3009MIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 16 ago to do that. Now at this point in time, ten years later, it is trying to change that. They would now like an exception to that particular zoning policy that the city set ten years ago. The way we should judge whether or not a conditional use permit should be issued is by the number of factors that we have to engage in in order to mitigate the consequences of issuing that conditional use permit. The more things we have to do to mitigate, the less desirable that request should be viewed. If you can mitigate two or three factors, that is different. We are not talking about mitigating a few factors. We are talking about mitigating a whole host of factors, and still not end up with something that is going to be liveable. I think that is where I have a real problem. We are trying to force compatibility where compatibility cannot exist. This is zoned as a residential, high density area. It is not zoned to be a sports arena area..If you want a sports arena, I support all sports activities from tennis to ice skating, but is this particular location in the middle of a high density residential area an appropriate place? I think not. The fact that we keep extending the use of that facility from ice skating to tennis to lord knows what down the road, the thing is that it is not just about the sport of tennis. I think we are talking about something entirely different. We are talking about a spectator sport, which is a whole different animal. That is why they have coliseums in non- residential areas. They don’t put coliseums in the middle of a residential area. It is just not compatible. Ms. Grote: I would like to remind everyone that this is not to be repeat testimony. This is for new information and new comments. There are several more people to speak, and then I will close the public hearing after entering some information into the record. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: I want to make a quick comment in regards to the fifth court. The fifth court was discussed many times at the City Council meeting last yea~. I just want to read a very quick quote from the City Council meeting last year. This was said by Mayor Laynie Wheeler. This is a quote from the minutes, with respect to the fifth court and its location. She said she had walked the site and determined that it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase II proposal came back with a fitth court in this location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it. That is very obvious to anyone who actually visits the site. The fifth court would be in the very middle of all of the housing around this parcel. I would like someone in the administration to make a special provision so that no additional courts will be built on this site, in case you give a green light for a use permit. Also another quick comment. Several times during this discussion, there was an issue about human noise. The response was always.that Palo Alto does not have an ordinance that. limits human noise. I know that some other cities do have this ordinance, so where is the logic here? We don’t have an ordinance, and because of that, the neighbors are subject to the human noise because we do not have an ordinance. In this regard, once again, if the use permit is approved, I would suggest that there be special provisions for noise limits, overall noise, not just noise from tennis balls which may or may not bother us, but human noise. We have heard about tournaments, and there will be spectators. So far, the experience with the Winter Lodge is extremely bad because those calls 24 or 12 hours a day phone lines, it doesn’t work, because they say it is a human noise and we cannot control it. They do turn the music down. That is true, but they cannot control human noise, and unless you protect KVIIPCMINS.31A53009M]DD.81 11-7-96 Page 17 us, nobody will. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto: I heard again today different opinions on just what the legislative history was on the initiative measure that was placed on the ballot for the land trade and the Winter Lodge. This is something that can be easily decided by looking at the minutes of the City Council meetings. Ms. Grote: You came in late, but earlier, I began the meeting by saying that I have the wording of the initiative. Chuck Thompson was clearly involved in -- Mr. Borock: I am not referring to that. I am referring to the statement made by a council member at the meeting, I believe it was Council Member Cobb, who said that the reason the couiacil drafted its own initiative, in part, was that the one being circulated included tennis, and they felt that if both tennis and ice skating were on the ballot, it would be defeated. That is in the minutes. Ms. Grote: I do have a copy of the video tape in which Mike Cobb spoke to the City Council in 1994. Mr. Borock: No, I am saying what Mike Cobb said at the time, not what his memory is, based upon what he wants to happen, but what Mike Cobb said when he was the prime spokesperson for putting the thing on the ballot. He said, take tennis out, because if it is included, . it is going to be defeated. The second thing is the question of alcohol. A tennis club is the kind of club, under state law, that can have an alcohol permit. The combination of alcohol and lots of people is a contributor to noise. This site, which is specifically a site for children for the ice skating lessons and the tennis lessons, I think that alcohol would be a bad thing. I listened to Kay Carey say they wanted to have coffee, but I didn’t hear her say they wanted to have alcohol. Mr. Kelly: We have never had alcohol in all the years I have been here - 36 years. Mr. Borock: Fine. Then I would say it could be prohibited from the site. Ms. Grote: Seeing no one else who wishes to speak, I have mentioned that I received some petitions against the use permit application. They are signed by Heidi Hendrix, R. J. Dielriech, James Hobson on Ellsworth Place. I may not have the names right. Ms. Fisher: Each sheet has a different signature. You do not have to read them all. Ms. Grote: Then I will just note that I did receive them. I also have petitions dated July 28th from concerned neighbors opposed to building tennis courts too close to residential homes and that tennis tournaments would be unacceptable and the noise would be unacceptable. Rita Boccalupa, June Dougherty, Keith Slipper, Don F. See, Wei Wang have signed that. Again, the same petition signed by Kevin Nooby, Dorothy Lee, Wayland Lee, William Bean and Lawrence Rogan. I did receive the E-mail from David Buldaan. I also did receive in support of the application a survey from the Winter Lodge which surveyed neighbors along Price Court who have concerns about noise, with those that KYI’]PCMINS.3]A:~3009M]DD.81 11-7-96 Page 18 are neutral being shown in blue, which is predominant, and those with concerns being shown in red. I will enter that into the record. I also have the letter from Lynn Chiapella which talks about noise generation and the landscaping and trees along Matadero Creek. Also a letter opposed to tennis from the Middlefield Road Homeowners signed by Mr. Coe, Dolores Meadows and Natalie Buchan. Also a petition to reject the proposal again signed by Natalie Buchan, Mr. Able, Virginia Bodine, Mr. Tong and again, Ms. Meadows. I will enter this into the record, as well. With that, I am going to close the public hearing and issue a determination within ten working days from today. Thank you. KITIPCIVIIlqS.31A:~30091vlIDD.81 11-7-96 Page 19 PETITION To: Attention: Re: The city of Palo Alto Planning Division Conditional Use Permit for Tennis Courts at 3009 Middlefield Road The undersigned Palo Alto residents hereby petition the City of Palo Alto to reject a proposal by Community Skating Inc. to refurbish four existing tennis courts and construct one additional court, as well as a picnicarea, playground, and rest rooms. Our reasons for this request are: It would be impossible to erect effective sound barriers to deflect noise carrying up to second- and third-story windows. Q The City has zoned our property as residential, yet we would not be assured of peace and quiet at any time of year, whereas at present we can at least leave our windows open in warm weather. o There are many tennis courts in close-by parks that are under-utilized. No sound study was made to measure human sounds (people yelling, children playing, etc.). We do, not want restrooms and their accompanying odors a few feet from our residences. 6.There is no justifiable reason for granting the proposal. Address Date PETITION To: Attention: Re: The city of Pal¯ Alto Planning Division Conditional Use Permit for Tennis Courts at 3009 Middlefield Road The undersigned Pal¯ Alto residents hereby petition the City of Pal¯ Alto to.reject a proposal by Community Skating Inc. to refurbish four existing tennis courts and construct one additional cQurt, as well as a picnic area, playground, and rest rooms.. Our reasons for this request are: It would be impossible t~ erect effective sound barriers to deflect noise carrying up to second- and third-story windows. The City has zoned our property as residential, yet we would not be assured of peace and quiet at any time of year, whereas at present we can at least leave our windows open in warm weather. There are many tennis courts in close-by parks that are under-utilized. No sound study was made to measure human sounds (people yelling, children playing, etc.). We do not want restrooms and their accompanying odors a few feet from our residences. 6.There is no justifiable reason for granting the proposal. Signature Address Date PETITION To: Attention: Re: The City of Palo Alto Planning Division Conditional Use Permit for Tennis Courts at 3009 Middlefield Road The undersigned Palo Alto residents hereby petition the City of Palo Alto to reject a proposal by Community Skating Inc. to refurbish four existing tennis courts and construct one additional court, as well as a picnic area, play~round, and rest rooms. Our reasons for this request are: It would be impossible to erect effective sound barriers to deflect noise carrying up to second- and third-story windows. The City has zoned our property as residential, yet we would not be assured of peace and quiet at any time of year, whereas at present we can at least leave our windows open in warm weather. There are many tennis courts in close-by parks that are under-utilized. No sound study was made to measure human sounds (people yelling, children playing, etc.). We do not want restrooms and their accompanying odors a few feet from our residences. 6. There. is no justifiable reason for granting the proposal. S~nature Address Date I~ ETI’[ I ON TO: Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator, Planning Division City of Pale Alto RE: Conditional Use Permit for tennis courts at 3009 Middlefield Road We are opposed to the issuing of a use permit for a private tennis club at this site. If one is issued, we propose the following conditions: The construction of an acoustically effective sound barrier along Matadero Creek. Four of the tennis courts are located here, just across from residences. At present, there is only a chain link fence at this location. The prohibition of electronic sources of noise, such as microphones, cassette players and loudspeakers. m The prohibition of rebound or practice walls and of ball shooting machines. The Saratoga Planning Commission recommended eliminating them at the Brookside Club because they proved to be a substantial source of additional noise. m The prohibition of the use of alcoholic beverages on the site or in the parking lot. = Noise and hours limits be set for parties and that the use of barbecues be prohibited. Prohibition of tournaments - there are other sites in Pale Alto where these could be held where residents would not be impacted. = Reasonable hours of use be set with the residents in mind: starting no earlier than 9:00 am on weekdays and I0:00 am on weekends and holidays, and lasting no later than dusk. 8.That supervisors be present at all times to enforce the restrictions. That someone be available at all times to be contacted in t-he event of complaints, especially before and after business hours, so that the police would not have to be bothered. Signatures.Street Addresses Date P ETI’[ i ON TO: Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator, Planning Division City of Polo Alto RE: Conditional Use Permit for tennis courts at 3009 Middlefield Road We are opposed to the issuing of a use permit for a private tennis club at this site. if one is issued, we propose the following conditions: The construction of an acoustically effective sound barrier along Matadero Creek. Four of the tennis courts are located here, just across from residences. At present, there is only a chain link fence at this location. The prohibition of electronic sources of noise, such as microphones, cassette players and loudspeakers. The prohibition of rebound or practice walls and of ball shooting machines. The Saratoga Planning Commission recommended eliminating them at the Brookside Club because they proved to be a substantial source of additional noise. 4.The prohibition of the use of alcoholic beverages on the site or in the parking lot. 5.Noise and hours limits be set for parties and that the use of barbecues be prohibited. 6.Prohibition of tournaments - there are other sites in Pale Alto where these could be held where residents would not be impacted. 7.Reasonable hours of use be set with the residents in mind: starting no earlier than 9:00 am on weekdays and I0:00 am on weekends and holidays, and lasting no later than dusk. 8.That supervisors be present at all times to enforce the restrictions. 9.That someone be available at all times to be contacted in the event of complaints, especially before and after business hours, so that the police would not have to be bothered. Siqnatures Street Addresses Date TO-L!se ---~;n!n8 Rdm!nis~rat,sr, P!annin,._-- Sluis~on ;_............nrnhihv ._.:. Petition Date:July 28, 1996 From:Concemed neighbors a~c~,÷~ l~;,~ p~.~p~.~ ~~,,~,:.~,~.- .~. To:7"he zoning administrator, City of Palo Alto Re:Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Site Tennis courts should not be built too close to residential homes especially top quality tennis courts that will be heavily used. The proposed fifth court will be right outside people’s fences. Even with the proposed six foot sound wall, residents will still be able to hear every hit of the balls during the day; On top of that, the noise from tennis tournaments will be unacceptable. Name (both print and sign)Street Address Date Comments .- : Years ago when Winter Club opened, we had trouble with noise. Winter Club also responsible for water leak onto Stern AVe. for 4 months. (See Joe Teresi, City ENgineer) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title:Tennis Center 2.Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 3,Contact Person and Phone Number:Joseph Colonna, Senior Planner (415) 329-2541 4.Project Location:3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto 5~ Application Number(s):96-UP-1, 96-EIA-1 6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Linda Stebbins Jensen, 3009’Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California 94306 7. General Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facilities 8. Zoning:Public Facilities (PF) 10. Description of the Project: Community Skating, Inc. (CSl), operators of the Winterlodge skating facility, propose to develop the former Chuck Thompson for use as a private tennis facility. The development includes re-orientation of two existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit for operation of an Outdoor Recreation Service, and Architectural Review Board approval for the proposed site improvements and landscaping. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:. The site currently contains five tennis courts, four are in poor but functional condition, the fifth is deteriorated and not playable. In addition, the site contains an abandoned swimming pool, which is scheduled to be removed by the property owner, the City of Palo Alto. The site abuts a channelized section of Matadero Creek. The front property line abuts the A:EIA9601.61 Page 1 11. Winterlodge skating facility and an automotive service station. Single-family homes border the property’s north and west property lines. 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. 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. Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Biological Resources Aesthetics Cultural ResourcesEnergy and Mineral Resources Hazards Water Noise Public ServicesAir Quality Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,X 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. A:EIA9601.61 Page 2 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. Project Planner Date Director of Planning & Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 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). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "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. "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). 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. A:EIA9601.61 Page 3 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into 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. A:EIA9601.61 Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental pl,ans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? 1 1 1,5,6 1,6 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,6, 7 2,3,7f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? X X x X X X × X A:EIA9601.61 Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact I) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? Xc)Discharge 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? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)Change 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? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Alteration of wetlands in any way? 8(B-7) 7, 8(B-7) 7, 8(B-7) 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 X X X X X X X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 8(B-5) 9 X X A:EIA9601.61 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Impact c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 9 5,9 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?5,10 Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 5,10 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 5,10 uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?5,10 Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?5,10 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 5,10 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?5,10 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- 1 2) X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 11 11 X X X X X X X X A:EIA9601.61 -.Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Iss.ues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact c)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 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) c) 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? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 8(B-8, B-9) 8(B-8, B-9), 15 8(B-8, B-9), 15 5,12 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 8 (B-4), 16 8(B-4) X 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? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services? 12 14 5 13 X X X X X X X X X X X A:EIA9601.61 Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 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? ~) 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? d) e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 5 5. 5 5 5,13 5 5 X 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:~ a)increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X X X 5,6 5,6, 17 5,6 X X x 6,8 (B-14) 6,8 (B-14) 6,8 (B-13) 6,8 (B-14) ’6,8 (B-14) 5,6 X X X X X X A:EIA9601.61 Page 9 issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Impact b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?5,6 X I 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)18 XDoes 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? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,18 X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c}18 XDoes 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 efPects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will 18 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier artalysis 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 0,(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. 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. A:EIA9601.61 Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 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; Sundstrorn v. County of Mendocino , 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18.SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Land Use map (1981-1995), Land Use Element (1981), Urban Design Element (1981) and Environmental Resources Element (1981 ). 2 Required compliance with UBC standards for seismic safety. 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report; 1994. 4 Public Facilities (PF) Zone District Regulations (Section 18.32 PAMC) 5 Review of plans and specifications submitted.with application. 6 Field investigation/site visit 3/15/96. 7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995; 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-13 and B-14; 1994. 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Background Report, pages 15-30; 1994. 10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element; 1981. 11 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 50-60; 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. 15 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 1980-1995, Urban Design Element; 1981. 18 Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items 1-17. A:EIA9601.61 Page 11 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES Geologic Problems.3 (b,c, g) 4 (a,b,c, d) 5 (a) 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, but theoretically possible. 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. Mitiaation: 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 fiood zone. Sites within this zone would be subject to flooding to a depth of less than one foot in the 100 year flood event. During construction activities, stormwater 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 stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Mitiqation: None required. Air Quality. The project is notexpected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project would 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 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; 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. Mitiaation: None required. A:EIA9601.61 Page 12 6 (a,d) 7 (a) Transportation/Circulation. The project would result in approximately 33 additional automobile trips per weekday, three of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The maximum daily trip generation would be 38 trips, occurring on Sundays. The Transportation Division has reviewed the project and determined that the additional trips would not be noticeable to nearby residents and would not 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 parking 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. Mitiqation: None required. Biological Resources. No endangered, threatened, or rare animal, insect or plant species have been identified on the project site. The project arborist report indicates that. there are 18 existing trees located on the project site..The applicant intends to remove five trees because of conflict with the project design or the health of adjacent trees. Of the five trees proposed for removal, two are in "poor" condition, two are in "fair" condition and one is in "good" condition. In addition to those trees proposed for removal, the City Arborist recommends removal of three existing parking lot trees because of there "brittle nat.ure", and replacement with a suitable parking lot species. The applicant proposes to plant five new trees in the park area at the~ rear of the project site. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant will be required to plant a total of 10 new trees~within the park and areas, adjacent to surrounding residential uses. In addition, the applicant will be required to replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of the required replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review .Board. Mitiqation: Replace the five trees proposed to be removed with ten new trees planted in the park and areas adjacent to the surrounding residential uses. In addition, the applicant will be required to replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and species of the required replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. A:EIA9601.61 Page 13 10 (a) 11 (d) 12 (e) Noise. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis, prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Acoustical Consultants, for the proposed tennis facility. The analysis compares the proposed use to the City’s Noise Ordinance standards for uses on public property adjacent to residential properties. The ordinance specifies a noise limit of 15 dB above the existing ambient condition at each residential property line. The ambient is defined as the lowest sound level repeating during a 6 minute time period, but not less than 40 dBA. The analysis indicates that the existing tennis facility noise levels are in violation of the Noise Ordinance during a serve, which initiates each point in a tennis match. The proposed tennis facility expansion will not increase the maximum single-event (serve) noise levels over the current tennis operation. However, the analysis determined that the average noise levels will be 3 dB higher than the existing operation, which would exceed the Noise Ordinance limit at the north property line by ldB. The maximum single- event noise level at the north property line would exceed the Noise Ordinance limit by 8 dB. The maximum and average noise levels at the east and west property lines would comply with the ordinance limits. In order to reduce the impact of increased noise from the proposed tennis facility expansion to a less than significant level, the project acoustical analysis recommends construction of a six-foot-high acoustically- effective barrier (fence) along the entire north property line. The exiting fence may be utilized if it is at least six feet above the finished elevation of the tennis courts and is, or can be made to be, "air-tight" in its construction. Demolition and construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, noise impacts during construction should not be significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to comply with the construction time and noise requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Mitigation: Implement the recommendation on page 5 of the projects acoustical analysis~ hereby incorporated by reference, to require the applicant to construct a six-foot-high wall along the entire length of the north property line. If all or a portion of the existing fence is to be used, the applicant shall show that the fence section is at least 6 feet above the finished elevation of the tennis courts and that it complies with the requirement to be "air-tight", as set forth on page 5 of the acoustical analysis. Public Services. 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. Mitioation: None required. Utilities and Service Systems. In addition to the proposed upgrades to tennis facilities and construction of a new park area, the applicant proposes to regrade the site and construct a new stormwater 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. Mil;iqation: None required. A:EIA9601.61 Page 14 13 (c) 15 (a,b) Aesthetics. The proposed tennis facility will improve the overall 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, and fencing will be improved. The applicant proposes to remove existing light poles, and upgrade the parking area and perimeter landscaping. Mitiqation: None required. Recreation. 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. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THiS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED ~’~ ~ ~---1~:~, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3009 Middlefield Road , PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s i~0ature Date A:EIA9601.61 Page 15 RM-3C PF CHURCH PARK ROSS M-30 STREET I Graphic Attachment to Staff Report ProJect: 5009 Mi~l~llefiel~l Roa~! Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of Con~iitional Use Permit for a private ou¢~oor re~rea¢ion eerviee (tenni~ facility) Date: November 13,1996 #: 96-UP-1 o DRIV~ Scale: 1 inch = 400 FT North November 2, 1996 Attn: City of Polo Alto Planning Board Re: Tennis Club at Winters Lodge To whom it may concern: As a resident of Palo Alto since 1978, I am writing this letter in support of the proposed tennis dub at Winter’s Lodge. As a disabled tennis player, such a facility would enable me to hone my skills for the tournaments I attend throughout the year. From my experience, it is a rare situation where you have an accessible facility, coupled with an instructor (such as Bill O’Brien) able to address the specific requirements of wheelchair tennis. As a former member of Polo Alto Task Force on Disabilities and a current member of the Polo Alto Accessibility Advisory Board, I encourage your approval of this dub. Your approval would be in keeping with Polo Alto’s on going attempt to address the needs of its disabled citizertry. 94301 November 2, 1996 Attn: City of Palo Alto Planning Board Re: Conditional Use Permit at Winter Lodge NOV 06 1996 Departmen~ ot -~lannmg Community Environrne’~ To whom it may concern: I am a tennis teaching professional with more than twenty years of experience. am also a resident of Palo Alto, very involved with the local tennis community, and in total support of the approval of the conditional use permit submitted by Winter Lodge for a Tennis Club. This area of the peninsula is one of the most active tennis playing communities in the country. The Palo Alto area and more specifically the mid-town area is in need of an organized community tennis club and tennis program. A successful skill building program for junior players, an instructional program adults, organized play, and a facility for recreational play will all contribute to the growth and enjoyment of tennis within the community. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, but I believe, based on my experience, that those concerns are unfounded. I have seen many tennis club co-exist with great success in similar proximity to the surrounding community. The concern about noise and spectators seems to be greatly exaggerated. A successful tennis program will not result, in my opinion, in any significant increase in noise or traffic in the area. The approval of this permit will not only benefit the local tennis community, but also serve the community as a whole by providing the opportunity for everyone to learn and participate in an enjoyable, beneficial, and most importantly, a lifetime sport. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any help, please feel free to contact me at 415-473-9877. Sin_ce~ reJy.~ ~,l~O’Brien 2201 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 MEMORANDUM July 22, 1996 TO: FROM: Lisa Grote/Planning Division Carl Stoffel~ransportation Division SUBJECT:Revised Traffic Generation Information for 3009 Middlefield Road (Tennis Courts) The traffic information that I provided to you previously was based on one new tennis court. Ths analysis did not take into account the fact that the other four existing courts are in such poor condition that they are currently not used much. Therefore, I have revised my traffic generation calculation with the assumption that the existing four courts are being used at 20 percent of their capacity, due to their poor condition, and that they will then be used at 100 percent capacity after they are refurbished. As previously presented, the new court will generate 33 daily vehicle trips, with three during the evening peak hour. A lnaximum of 38 trips would occur on Sundays. The other four courts would generate trips at 80 percent of this rate, or 106 new daily trips, with 9 during the evening peak hour, and a maxilnum of 122 new trips on Sundays. The total new trips for the 5-court facility would be 140 new daily weekday trips, with 12 during the evening peak hour, and a maximum of 160 new trips oriSundays. Compared to travel on the nearest public street, Middlefield Road, this additional amount of traffic would be insignificant, and would not be noticeable to residents or drivers, even during the evening peak hour. On the site itself, the increased amount of traffic might be noticeable to residents in the immediate vicinity of the tennis court parking lot. An adequate number of parking spaces and acceptable circulation will result in no significant impacts from this additional traffic on site. CS Recelved: 7/25/97 2:09PM;415 493 3294 -> PLANNIN~;Hage ~,, UINTER LODGE Fax : 415-493-3294 Jul 25 ’97 14:20 P053UL-24-’~? %5:49 ID:TECHTONIC/PI:K:K NSSOC TEL N0:488-730-0702 Attachment 9 EDWARD L. PACK AS$OCIA TE8, INC. July 23, 19997 Project No. 2_8-016-5 Ms. Linda Jansen Wimerlodge of Pale Alto 3009 Middlefield Road Pale Alto, CA 94306 Subject:Additional Maximum Level Noisc Measur~m©n~a of Tennis Plkying, The Winter]~ge, Pale Alto Dear Ms. Jansen: This report will provide :you with the results of additional maxlmum noise level measurements made at the’Winterlodge tennis facility. The purpose of taking additional measurements was from a ¢onwrsafion that ! had with Richard Rodkin wherein Mr. Rodkin questioned the relationship, bctw~n the peak noise measurements made by myself and Vinee ~;almon and previously r~orted marimum measurements. Vinee and I measur~ p~ak levd~ of 79-88 dBA at a distar~ce of 40 R. We had als0 reported that the m~ximum levels are approximately 15-20 dB lovcor than the peak levels. Mr. Rodkin’s reasoning was ~hat the maximum levels, therefore, should b¢ 59-73 dBA, which arc substantially high r than the 58 dBA1 used in the original study, To r~solve this issue, maximum sound level measurements were made a~ the Winteriodge facility on July 22, 1~7 using a Brae] & Kjaer 2231 ~oision lntegratio~ Sound Level Meter. ~ me~r ~ set to "fast" ~ ~d A-weighting ~ ac~ord~~ with the Noise Ordinate. MEICt~ER’ ACOU~"I1OAL IO~IETY OF/dVIERIOA AUDIO ENOINEERINO tiOOll~T’l" Recelved: [dI,NIER LODGE Fax :29 .........Ju] 25 ’97 14:20 P02 -2- The first set of measurcn’ents was made at a distance of 25 ft, from the poin$ of ,he b~l. T~s seri~s of~e~em~t w~ ~ d~te~i~ tf ~e 70 ~A @ 2~ ~. ~te~on s~e~ified in ~he "Daytim~ Ex~pt~n" wo~d b~ e~. Mr. Bill O~B~en, pro, w~ ~sk~ to sere ~s ball~ ~ ~ ~ he ~ld. Subs~uently, a 14.ye~-old femnle ~dvnt, who ~s rbted 2nd in No~em C~ifornia, was al~ ~k~ b~is ~ ~d ~ she eo~d~ ~e res~ of~e m~ments ~ sho~ ~ ~e t~le, ~low~ The seeond series of ~ttremotats were made at a distance of 46 ft. from the service point of a doubles nasty, which corresponds exa~’-t|y to the di~tanoe from the closest tennis service poirtt to th~ nearesl residential property line, Although 40 t~. had been used in the previous analyse~, the drawings provided to us were not precise. The exazt distance should be 4(; i~. This loealion r©presents the highest level of t~nnis plnying sound at any residential i property line that would occur during play at the Winterlodge. Both the terrain pro and ihe ohamp,ion ~tudent were asked to serve tennis balls as hard as they could. The results ~ shown in the table, below. A third series of measurimaents was made a distance of 25 ft, from the baseline with two.t youth players volleying.! The t’esults are also shown in the table. The Noise Ordinance limit at the residential property life is 56 dBA Lm~, at 8:00-9;00 Sunday morning. We haw abo noticed that there is a pre-9:00 a.m. prohibition on the courts closest the residents, At 9:00 a.m. on a Sunday the ambient inoreased by 2 dB to 43 dBA. The noise limii should, therefore, be 58 dBA (43 dBA + 1~ dB = ~8 dBA.). Rece~vea: 7/,~5/g7, 2:0gPM;41~ 493 3294 -> PLANNING;Page 3 WINTER LODGE Fax : 415-493-3294 Jul 25 ’9Z 14:20 PO~ T__~_nni~ El~ll Se~’vln~ and’VoHe.vln~ ~a’~lm’om Sound Level~. dBA 68.4 64,8 69.8 65,3 69,4 64.2 /70.3 68.4 /71 70.0 /73.5 67.7 69.5 68.5 69,4 64,6 ,52.4 62,4 60.4 54.6 67,4 63,1 53.8 63,8 62.8 59,7 64.4 63.4" 59,851.2 64.1 , ~ ¯48.8 65.1 61,5 57.7 67,$62.2 58.4 623 62,8 A.s shown by the dam p~scnted, the tcrmit pro, on ~a~ton, ~u]d Et ~ b~t at a level higher t~ 70 dBA It ~5 ~. If ~iS 0~ during no~ play, whioh is highly ~ike]y, the "Da~ime Ex~tto~" ~uld not ~ ~plied. Howev~, it is mo~ evide,t that during non.pwfessiona] level play 70 d~A at 25 ~. would "Daytime Ex~p~io~" ~Y ~ appli~ble. Also, ~pi~[, ew~y sound levels in ~e Io~ to mid 50’s at a dis~ of 25 ~. ~e t~it of the NoiSe ~din~ ~tt ~lly}not be exo~dcd dung most of ~e play t~e. ~e sewing of ~is balls will ~ee~e Noise O~i~ee Hmit at ~ no~ ~op~y lin~ bY up to 5 dB (63 dBA Lm~ ¢v~t~ ~alnst a 58 dBA ii~), ~e ~f!gation provid~ ~ the original ~ugtical study was ~18~ ~ ~u~ t~ noi~ ~om R~s ~t hi~s by 9 dB at ~e no~h prop¢~y line. A~ a reminder, 64 dBA wu ~und level ev~d ~t ¯ 56 dBA E~t (8:00 Rece~ve~:7/25/97 2:09PM;~1~ 493 ~2~4 ->WINTE~ LOD6E Fax : 415-493-3294 Ju! 25 ’97 14:20 P04...... JUL-24-’97 iSISi- ID~TECHT~Y~4IC/~CK RSSLE I~L ~U;~~-~--~,~ ..... -4- Ir~ conclusion, if lh~ "DWtime Exception" is not applied to this proj~, noise level excesse~ will ~ur. ~e initiation m~e~ r~cnd~ in ~ original study ~l] be more ~ ~cquate 1. r~dng m~um te~is playing noise compli~ce ~ ~e ~d~s of ~ Ci~ of Palo Aho Noise Ordinal. ~ es~m~te ~e m~im~m levels being 15-20 ~ ~low ~e ~ak levels, ~p~ntly, ~s not prcdse. Mr. ~dkin’s i~ue of~a~imum ~lations~p should now be ~lv~. This ~¢port presents the ~esuRs of additional tennis plsying sound !cwI measurements at the Wint©rlodge tennis fltollity in Palo Alto. Th¢ study findings are ba~ed on measurements and are correct to the best of our knowledge. If you have any questiom., please call me, Sincerely, EDWAP, D L, PACK ASSOC,, INC. President RECEIVED 1B 1997 Attachment 10 ’, ’-’.=_~ "-" -~ "-~|’-n;"~-f "__... ~, ] Qo.~_._.:Depadment at Planning and community Environment Lie a i~ r,~ t 8 Fn~:io.--:m-"--.-a,-~- copies o¯ the ne~.~spaper artic!es and letters to the Editor ~’~,s 5-6 hearing. .... .,-~,.o the ~it~ Cie.rk : st week~ise enclosed ~.,-- a c~p~ ~f w~ ~ turned "-~,~,~ ~-~,,,.. Councii. You requested a cop~. C~uIfl you piease ,,,~..~’~’~ s~re that ¯ d~e, ,,,, rm~-~ ~ackets for September i5. Also oie~se Could !jou check that the foi!oLuin~ are also included in the packets along ~.qth the other mate:-iais: ~;ir. ~odkin’s ttt~e reports, and appeiiants’ and Dr. Saimon’s responses expert reoorts ~.h,-. leIlers.’r~porf~ b~ dnhn fibrah~m The neighbors’ letters and petitions u~ou received durin_q the zoning hearings a ,,e~r ~.~ so much material, i think ~.~ is easier to know what is in t,~e packet ",;.- . ..-~.i- ~i-~ indi~idua~ d~umen~s ~re ~epa,_~e=. ~n the large stapled packets ~~"~ ~’" Nail, ~ was diffir-zzlf tO ii~d thiRQs or tO kgow mere=e, o receive ~Ii the doc-me-*s~r=ciuded. = hope the Council h ~--- Wi!i not ......,. stapled together, that th~s ~as done for us because the material ~n.~ mailed= ¯ ie must have Hr. Pack’s new report in time to study it and respond. ~.I .~therwise, i think we wou!d ha,Je ~_,= demand a continuance, ille already s~;a|Io~ed one episode of not h.inn informed of new (and definitive) ~eveiopments in a timeig fashion= If we had had adequate notice of ¢"Fs intention "n p~rsue the " "_..~~u da~i~gnt exemption, and time to prepare a response, the Commission’s action might have gone differentlg. uut~.n~ our recent phone call, ~ had the impression .-L.’.eu would .~|t~e us a cop~ of Mr. Pack’s upcomin._q report as soon as you receive it rather than ~,aitin~ until you have studied it. if ! am in error, please !et me know. I trul~ ~ppreciate ~our patience with us. ¯..~ 326-6359 For the City 9_’.Jowino the !_general ~.~,==inh~ exception, ~or the proposed tent=is n~~ h"* it ~as for ~he "good ~f the communit]=" community? Aren’~ the ~e~!e living on three sides of the... community? i believe the Commissioner ~uas referrin~ to the tennis community, specificali~ the Pale ~f.o Ter:.r,,is Club (P~T£]. PATC a~ic~s up to 50 ~ercent ef its members to be nonresidents, its schedule includes I0 m~n~blg tournaments, t ~as informed b~ the club that these take pl~ce on ~eekends starting at 8 am. gates for league play are not included, but w8 ~ere to!d at earlier hearings that the~ ~il! be extensive. This is in addition to matches of various kinds, lessons and key play. Although ~:ommunity .Skating inc. talks as though the project is mainly to benefit children with its "special wa~" of teaching tennis, in fact most of the tennis club schedule appears to be for adult play. And can methods used to teach ice skating be transplanted to tennis teaching? The courts would no longer be open to the public as they are no~. people willing to buy a key for- $i gO/gear or members of the PAT[: would haL.-’e use of the site. T~e facilit~ would be a private use ~f pub!ic land. ~,’.e were told at the hearin~ that the purpose of this facility with five courts is to ai!ou~ the tennis club to ho!d aii its tournaments at one site. For this ~.~nL~emen,::e in the club’s s-::heduling~ neighbors woul~ pay the the ;~ear ~eather permitting) including holidags= An~ this 70 dg ~s on ~ ~,_9=.., and soectators. This sound limit ..... ~ for bai~. ~=.,,,,, and "seueaku. .. shoes" ....nne__ i know has ever ~.~.~=~,~" of "seueak~ shoes"). ~ ~- ......... ~,.~i!t~, ~d rej~cte~ ~]! the rest, ~hich ~ere either unfavorable t~ ~,~,~,~., s~u This ~iues ~he appearance of -..... "w~en ~skeO about ~he exception: )o~k ai ihe data here~ i wo~id conclude ~o," He ~arned the Commission iees~ some o~ the iime,, even ~ith lhe.. excepiion. ~*,,,~, a,,uK’=-=s higher noise Iimits. ~e said that further studies ~e~e needed before mitigation measures cou!d be determined= The generai daylight exception was proposed by Community Skating, !nc. because they realized the faciiit!j Luoul,’J violate the noise ordinance under the usual rules (ambient plus 15 decibeis as the noise limit}. Such hiqh_ noise leuels .,,,J-~r’ decibels} allowed by the exception were not envisioned for ibis kind of use: a sporl faciiii~ so ciose ~o residen~s, i be!Jeve that ~he ~aylighi exception is generaIl~ granted for the use of machinery or temporary construciion projects. Pain Aiio residents of a not so we!t-|o-do neighborhood are faced with halting their health and we!i-being compromised so thP.~ a club, hail of whose members may not be residenls, can schedule !heir tournaments more CO~L~eaiently. is this the kind One thai discriminales amongst its residents base~ on income and poiiticai an~ s~ciai connections? I think it proper for any Councii members who are members of CSi or PATC to so state at the hearing September 15. Please prope me wrong, City Council[ Do not al!o~ the sacrifice of residents who |ack the "right" connections with City Hail or the :’right" addresses. You are our ias~, hope. Natalie Fisher 736 Eilsworth Place 326-6359 Attachment: Requested Conditions for use permit ?36 F_llsworth Place -Members of the Pale Alto Cily Councii C~tg of Polo Alto 250 He,hilton Avenue Pa|o Aito, CIA 9~1303 The ,=.~se permit for ’-=,he former Chuck Thompso,’.-: Swim,iTennis s~le at ~i:~09 MiddleIieI~ Road, Application I, io. 96-1~P-I Dear Council Members: This is an update to a letter sent to Lanie Wheeler 9/3/96. Please notice the addition of "Hours of Usage" on page 5. °’A citizen’s riq_ht In have a tolerable place to live must take precedence over a citizen’s right_ to recreate." This is taken from the appeal letter Ip. 7 #7,=. from the Middlefield Road Homeowners’ Association, dated August 2.2, 1996. The letter goes on to say "People cannot pick up and rea~iily move, while people can find other places to p!ay, especially in this case where there are 61 public tennis courts and lots of parks for picnic activity." This ~oint is one the other tLVO appeal letters (from myself and John Abraham and from Wei Wang) have also tried to make= Since we wrote our appea! letters, further information has come to my attention and t.hat is what this letter is about - new information, new to me at least. John and I visited St. Mark’s Church on Colorado and the new expanded YMCA on Ross Road and looked at their sound walls. We also visited the Planning Commission and obtained copies of some documentation regarding the YMCA. We contrasted the conditions pieced on the YME;A use permit with those placed on the Winter Lodge’s fo~ the new, expanded ~enn|s facilities at 3009 Mi~]dle~ield ~oa~. The co~trasl is amazin.~ and =,=.~e are shocked that residents of the two neighborhoods should be treated so differently. Landscaping The only physicaJ condition added to the tenr=is use permit for the "benefit" of those residents who ii;~e on Ellsworth is not one we asked T~=~ and.~’;s, in Tact, of no beneTit: the i~ne of fir trees along the cree~, i aske,-J Lisa Grote on the phonew~,9":~’’ this condition zvas adds.d_ and was toir~ that it was for aesthetic effect. Since we all have tall fences° ~ic~ bloc~ out an~, view ~’~f the tennis cour~.s~ such a visual screen |s not needed. Lisa said that., in 5 or 6 years, whe.n the trees have grown, t.~e mitigation of noise afford, ed by them would be "minimal, at best." ~ ha:.~e hear~ that for ~.rees ~.o have a muffling affect on noise., there wou|~i need t~ be a dense screen of large {48:’ box) ~.rees. ~o much for ~.his prol.ective condit|on. ~n~. YMCA use permit (p. i~} states ihal "A dense [my e~asis] landscaped b~ffer, consisting of a combinaiion of trees and shrubs~ shail be provided a!ong ~he. rear and side proper~y "~ . ~ ~-~!,,,_.s ....,e~iaceme.~ trees shall be a mi~: of mostly five anH fifieen go!ion size~ with some 24 inch box size also included." Note that Zoning Code Section 18.32.070, Speciai requirements in the PF public facilities disiric~, subsection (a) {3) (page !859 of the Municipal Code) does tequire a ion foo~ wide landscaped "yard" between a creek and the property line. EIlsworlh Place is jusl across MaIadero Creek from four ~enn~s courts. Two of ~hese are directly behind my back yard. Neighborhood Liaison The other "protection" in the Winter Lodge use permit is that a phone number be available for neighbors to call in case of a F~roblem. This is in sharp contrast ta the "Managers on Duty" of the YMCA, who will carry pagers and be available 24 hours a day to t~e neighbors (memo ~rom One, Logan, director ot the YMCA to Neighbors, dated April 16, !996..1. Mr. Logan has even appointed a back-up to Managers on Duty. The YMCA is also willing to change ~rogram times and locations to avoi~ ;~iisturbing neighbors’ slee~ and reduce off site parking and traffic problems. At the zoning hearings, the Winter Lodge balked at even making a phone number available for neighbors to use when problems arise during times the Lodge is c!osed.~ We were told to ".call Ihe police." The contrast between the two facilities in their willingness be a .good neighbor is evident. The ~:ity isn’t doing this in our case, but it did facilitate the good neighborliness of the YMCA. (See Condition 1.1 of the YMCA use permit 91~-UP-38:3412 Ross Road.) This condition does not state simply that a phone number be made avaiiable, b~.it that "The appiicant shall appoint a neighborhood liaison who may be contacted by neighbors of the project site during all hours of operation ancl during special events to voice complaints about noise violations, parking concerns or any other disturbances originating at the YMCA facility .... The liaison shall be proL~ided the au~,hority to correct ar-.:y vio!at|on.~.and to make every effort to at.~oid ~listurbances to ~he neighborhood." Sound Barriers The sound wa!Is at St. Mark’s and at the YM~_:A are at least ? feet and made of br|ck (masonry}= Besides being solid, they are also attractive. At the YMCA on Ross Road, all three sides of the property bordered by homes are surrounded by a dark red brick wall, 7 or 8 feet hiyh, ~,nbreken an~ continuous, to protect neighbors. (90-UP-38, 93- ARB-.5!, 93-ElA-51~ The use permit states ~p. 5) "A sound barrier shall be constructed along the full length of the northerly, westerly and southerly property lines...shall be constructed to a height of 7 feet, unless a majority of property owners on any boundary indicate in writing that ~ feet is preferred, and of a concrete or masonry ma~erial...with a minimum surface weight of 3 ibs. per square foot.., and shaii have no craci<s or gaps in or at its base. The noise barrier shall be maintained in goodaesthetic condition and in such a manner as to r~.duce .~s sound attenuating propert|es~" ~m~ e_rnphasis~ When the Winter Lodge expanded, one of the conditions was to build a 8 foot wooden fence next to the condominiums. Later, this was amended and the fence was shortened down to 5 feet. |t was not maintained. !t has never served as a sound buffer.., so the residents didn~ think it ~orth making a fuss over. The wall is shoddy, and anything but solid. You can see the holes betwee~ planks. N~w the use permit for the expaoded tennis facilities requires a wooden fence at the north ,ah~ is not an acousticallyboundary. A wood fence, no matter how ’ ’ effec|ive sound barrier; it does no good at all if it does not meet the requirements. Edward Pack, who did the sound study for the Winter Lodge as client, recommended "...it (the sound barrier at the Price Court boundary) must be air-tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other openings, and provide for long-term durability...must have a minimum surface weight of 2.5 Ibs. per sq. ft. If a wood fence is used, homogeneous sheet materials are preferable over conventional wood fencin~ as the latter has a tendency to warp and farm openings with ~ge .... " (p. 5.i~ This warping is exactly what happened to the wood fence along the condominiums. (The tennis use permit says nothing about the new 8 foot fence supposedly to be built aiongothe condominiums.} i~ seems apparent to me that the Win~er Lodge did no~ comply w|~h the condition regar~iing the orig|na! LL~OOd fence at the con~om|niums, nor ~ir~=~ia what ~as buiito Without be|.~ required to ~o better by the City, i! ~iH bui!~ simi!ar shoddy new fences, with no perceptibie sound 3 buffe~ effect° at the r, orth boundaru and eastern boundary. Note that no barrier ~s being requi~e,~ a!ong the creek! Chear~ and ineffectiL~e wooden fences are being acce~)ted as sound barriers at the tennis courts and Winter Lodge~ ~hile the ?MCA has masonr~ w~i~s oa t~ree s~es~ The tennis courts are an open faciiity ~hich ~enera~es~ ~ve~ w~h oni~ four c~ur~s ~n use, m~ch h~gher n~ise ~eveis ~a ~he nei~hborheo~ ~han ~he enciosed YMCA. ~h~re is ~h~ fairness of even rationale here? Why di~n’~ the us~ ~ermi~ for ~h~ constructed on thre~ sides of the tennis facilities ~o protect a~i ~he neighbors? This was no~ discussed in ~he hearings. The neighbors migh~ have been i~norant of this possibility; surely ~he zoning administrator knew about the YMCA. Noise levels Here |s another contrast be~.ween the two use permits. At the Winter ,~odge and Tennis facilities, the noise ~imit is ~56 dBA under the usual ru|es and 70 di~A with the general daylight exception. Condition 4.3 of ~he YMCA use permit (p. 5 Up-90-38, 11/25/91} states "ail mechanical equipment associated with the facility sha!l be designed and specified so that when al! mechanical equipmen~ is operating, noise levels do no~ ~xceed 40 dBA at the oroDert~ lines .... " And Condition 4.~ prohibits all outdoor amplified sound. The only noise the Polo A!to Noise Ordinanc~ covers is mechanical noises, and Mr~ Pack’s sound s~udy addresses ~he mechanical noises of tennis rackets hitting balls and "squeaking shoes". ..~ the difference in dBA levels allowed and is this fair? And why are voice noises a consideration at the YMCA and not the at the Win~er Lo~ge? In an open facil~ty, such as ~he ~nnis club, vo~ce noise has ~ considerable impac~ en nearby n~ighbars. The U:|nter Lodge use permit fails to address the quality of life for residents: the impact of voice noise is ignore~ as thoug~ ~t were not a factor: only average mechanical noises were considered in ~udging .if ,h~. noise ordinance would be violated, whereas it’s the peak noises we wiii have to !ive with (read John Abraham’s portion of our appeal letter); and absolutely no noise mitigation was proposed for the western boundary, even though residents of Ellsworth Place are closest of all the neighbors to four of the tennis caur~s. Usage This is of great concern to the residents, i request that olay not be allowed before 9 am on Mondays through Saturdays and !0 am on ~undays an~ ~o~idays~ Maa~ o~ the residents are retired, work a~ bome~ or ~re at hom~ to raise children. (The pop~!a~ion of newborn babies and uer~ young chii~ren has rece~ti~ increased seoera~ foi~ o~ E!isworth Piace.) Nei~]hborhood Relations Neighborhood meetings are a condition of the use permit for the YMCA. :’The applicant shall schedu!e reg;-~iar meetings with the neighborhood, a minimum of one every six months.~ to review: the status of compliance with ~he terms ~f the ~se permit, the status of noise an~ disturbance con~roi and ~he status of neighborhoo~ reiations." ~Conditions: ~enerai I=2~. in a memo from the director Oan L~gan to ~he neighbors of YMC~, dated Apri! 16, 1996, he states, to improve the ~one of these neighborhood meetings, "we think i~ would be a~good idea to bring in a facilitator who can heip us communicate with one another..." ! think the City should make similar neighborhood meetings a condition of the Winter Lodge use permit and require *~hea.~.u~=~.an~’;---- + to arovide. ~.~ neutral facilitator. The presence of City representatives at these meetings would be a good idea also; there have been City staff at ÷ ,= Y}~_C A meetings. Neighborhood relations with the l_L|inter Lodge are now nonexistent. The City Council requested The Winter Lodge directors to confer with the neighbors in planning the uses of this site. They did not. And there is no condition in the use permit requiring this. With their noncomp|iance regarding the sound fence at the condos and negative response to noise complaints from ,qeighbors, i can state confidently that there exists no desire on the part of the applicant to confer with the neighbors. This is understandable, perhaps, since there is an inherent conflict in goals which hardly permit cooperation: the Winter Lodge wishes to maximize the use of the site and the neighbors wish to preserve the tranquility of ~.heir homes. We much prefer the "low intensity" use the Council had mandated at its public hearings to the schedule of very heavy use we heard about at the zoning hearings (see below). Key entry players and group lessons for children: 8 am till dark ..... ~0~,Monday through Saturday: 9 am till darl< on Sunday {holidays -," mentioned} - every day, all year round as weather permits. s in addition, there is the schedule of the Polo Alto Tennis C!ub: League Play. all courts in use at once, both singles and doubles play, 6-8 pm four days per week, from April through ,iufy and ~tarting again in the fall from October through February or March, as m-~ch ~.s I0 months out of the year, during weekday or Saturday ~t!ernoon~: ~lus 1 1 ~.~ namen.s ~er ~ear including Labor Da~, each iasting for an entire weekend from 8 am until 3 or 4 pro, from March through November. ~ole of the City in Monitoring The City staff also prepares a Condition Monitoring and Operations Status Report on the YMCA annually, as required in the use permit (condition 1.3}, for the Planning Commission’s review. "The applicant shall fund preparation of a written condition monitoring and operations status report to be prepared annually. The Planning Division will administer preparation of the report by a !and use coas~:Itant...the YMCA shall post funds covering the costs af report preparation .... The contents of the report shall include, at a minimum: documentation of neighbor complaints; status of compliance with ai! conditions of approval and the City Municipal Code; recommendations for any necessary code compliance efforts; and traffic counts on Ross Roa,~ and at the project driveways." In fact, the Y keeps a !og of neighborhood complaints and Y responses. The log includes even such minutiae as the Y removing a light bulb from an exterior light, and notifying people with car alarms to disarm them while their cars are at the Y. O.uestions $ince the Winter Lodge will have to subsidize the new tennis facilities, won’t this cause fees at the skating rink to rise? ,’.L,:~ii! any of the Council members be declaring a conf!ict in this matter? Attachment 11 AUG 1 8 1997 Department o; ~-,~.,.-..jCommunity ~,ivironm~=" Unoer the circumstances of the Piannino Commissions hearin~ of I,,i~,~-’.." Irll"l7 ::, r.,-,’.i’- -" ~ i.~.,-i ~ "~._-.:,’;#:,-~.-."." l---- i--’--.-..-. _t~-,-,u~,4 .,’.J, : ~=, uPl_,~:l~tlt5 r!uu lh.,i.~.~:!,_.,~[tl. ,~d ~.ll’llg fCI t’esonti.g i.0 .’-it. -"-~t--,’--"’-z" wr, "t-i ,-i~÷-4 I, O~-.!Q,’--’7 i ;,.-,-~¢. ’=t,-" ~-v .........opu, .. ~<~u .,.uly ....,,.~,...~ .,~., ~bt~..u v,-,. up a copy or,,]y on +~"-’ afternoon of ~’" i.-...-~- c .......... ,"---~,-. ~ ............. - .... ,-, ......... -,~ ...... clear ~heu ’,,,,--’ere oersuaded-that Mr. F’ack’s report showed normal ~er,,nis r_....1~ wnuiT~ b~ n ,q~.t~.r fhan 70 dBA at .75 f~.et ,~he limit ~resnriberl b~ the ~:a~her tha6 black and white th~ Commi.m::inn decide6 thai. U-~e GDE was .:,UD~,.dh~.,~ilU,,:,up,icable in the case the tennis . pro<,ec..-I Since professionalTs would not likelq be .plauing on the COUrtS it W6S argued f.he 70 dBA limit ,,vould not be ~,~--~°-" .....~, u,c~n in .normal play and on c!,~t basi~ the motior.,, to make the .....’ ...... n~,_.~oo~f g changes and add some other conditions was carried bu unanimous vote. I woOld i" ....-<., . . ,n fact lU.,,-¯l.Ke to, e,,,l~w Mr.,~o’-~-::~u,~,.. ~ data ano =.how thai ~’=-+ <’-~ opposite conclusion holds, du~ mmnlg tu Ln~ ’,,,vuf~],m ui che bDc, ,,,vhlu:i .... ~.,-:,+~,~.-- ",,>;,Im- ,~o ,>~,~.;~ noisu condition of use." ~\~en if muci’i of the ÷ -,. * + - ,- . .... -~,,--÷--’-÷- i noise~:,~,,~-~--.~nq. ins li.m~t renders ,.n~ GDE ~noperable. in particuior consider Mr. Pa~k% data from his table on his pa.qe 3. He exoiains that he tool.’.: o sample -+....n. i4 ~,,,:-u, 8 hits eact] from the pro, Mr. O’~rien and ÷-p. !_lear .-.~d !4,, :, uft~, ~aK.n.q J,=,[, ,0 ,ll c <flu bi~,, aS n~rd a~J LRi:I’.~ UUUlLi. nl:t trlun LUUI<. another similar set at ,.-rteasi.irem~/its at "~" ""’-’+ " %~.-n ...... ,4.-.4 .~ .;~..- series of 8 measurements of .qounq children vo]]eMir@ or,, the courts. -! t~-.e .’-e~,, H ’..-,,,#:l.=-~f,-~,- ;4~ fRRt i-P- f.i-..._-, i:; ¢;~P,;-~ ÷h~ ~ ....... to .,+.he levels at 25 feet usin.q ,the usua! formulae familiar to acousb.ca] :.u~!=~,L~ Maximum Sound_~.-,,~,o,i .... -~,-- dBATennis Ball serving and ’.~-,’ ’-,"~--~-.,,÷~-- : ~ < ~-- ~.-~- - -.-’--" ~,, li -",~ ~’-’q~. ReportE<-. ....~cceu ~ rum : :,~. Pa,~k o ,_,@ ~ .....,. , =~ ,. Pro 7outh -,~ set of data, adjusted to 25 ft. Pro Vouth 68.4 64.8 67.7 :_,.,.t#,= ~ 69.8 65.3 -~’~ "~- ", -.’.,’6U.4q -’,~’~ ~69. i 68: I~ .--~.,_ ~..- 70.3 68.4 6n=.7 68.7 ,-" 1.570.0 "n "~~b :-.’.<+65. ~ 73.2 67.7 70.4 66.8 69.5 68.5 73. !67.5 ~’~- "-68.0u-~.~b4.6 68. i 7q ’~ ....~<n r-,,67.3,;..-oh. ,,’.~verao es :’lotic~-:,--t nf fhp. tnfal 15 ,-- - r,- nl ,-,,:- .-- ....nr4,---d for ira- l-i’FirJpn i!’i~t’R,..tli.~.. ......~.-,l~l,l.,,,..,, t’!.l ....,t,.,.-- --..._.== ...... ",’~"~ 6 instannes in wi-.;ir:h ~’"’-~,,i._-, sound ~. ....I exceeded 70 dBA or n,,,,F..r 37:.’+., of the t~me. The average dBA ievel for M~- O’Brien slightly -’- .......4-,, 70 " ¯~huly ~,.~ ,~U,~,~Lo in the report reached or. ..........~,.,,_..-_.~"~d~ ~ the :~irm~ .....and in the case of Lh~. pro, he r:n~qd, do so more th,~n_. percentage of limit exceedances will likely qo up over time. !n this sample ot two there are no uoun.q adults in th.e~r ’.’O’s or thirties. Such olauers mau not be as talented as the above two but some mau be ~xo~cted to"be stron~ enou.qh to hit the ba!l as loud!~, never mind w[-~ere a piag~.r with strer[~itl’: but limited ;~bilitu w’:[1 want to work on enou.qh. The C.ornmissioners seemed to feel that onl.q .pros wou!d be ]ikei.q to e~eed U-~e limit and wI~ile I:,ein!~ a E, ro may be a ~i~fficient conditicm certainl.q is not necessarN. What is n’eeded is a fair samD!in.q of various penple’s~serves, !nclu.di.ng’strong hitters in various age~g’rou~. Mr. Pack may not be unbiased ~n his current selection of hitters, and a fair. r~nres~.nt~tiv~. ~amole is ne~.ded Tha~ is one of lh~. reasoi;.-~ fnr a n~w acoustical report as recommended by Mr. ’- ":" , n~ o~.her measurements, involvinq vo!leyin~ for ,’..Ioun.q chi!dren areirrelevant for determinin.q applicabi!i!’.q of [he" GDE.~ if’is tne youn.q noise. n. estimates from Mr. Pack’s earlier reports an e-xpected ro,’.,~,-, ,--,~ h~÷ levels of 59 to 73 dBA at 40 feet for fast, A-wei,.:lhted meas~/t-ements. AdiustinQ for 25 feet the predicted ran,.qe Would be-63 to 77 dBA. The abSve [a[Tle shows the ;-an!_]e Mr. Pack a,_:.tuall!4 obtained in his Jut!4 23rd repor~ v, as 64.2 to 73."-.--’-dBA. in SUbo~anti~i ag, eerne.’~, for for tennis hit noise in the Brookside reoort was too low for mitiaation Mr. Rodkin’s Julu 10 report also notes "GiYen the apparentlu hi~her ,:,ourcs noise levels ~ased on the addendum report~.ul~- ~1.~r.,~a"v~,, ~,.~i woui,!-appear that the noise ordinance would also be exceeded at the ’,,.vest iik:ei!.i be required to ,miti~ate noise levels to the ordinance limits at the re.’=_.id:~.nces b:, the west,’dependinq upon exactly how and ;,,,,here the ordinance is enforced." Thus if there is a case for noise irnpacts at F’rice Court then Eilsworth Place residbnts mau also be due mitigation even tI~ou.qh the GDE does not req,uire it. " question. Botifthe drawings b.q the architect and mq ov,,,’n Dhusical measurements on s~te show that ~he 4th court outer sideline isabout’ " .~",- feet ~- -~.~. Tenr, is serves v,,,".,l~, be made at,, om the property line st Price Co,:~" " Arguments Concernin.q the Proposed Tennis Project at 3005Middl~fi~ld R~ad, hg.l~hn K. ~bral~am . City Council Hearing September 15, 1997 Summary Statement We fear we shall be forced to bear a cruel burden, up to 12 hours per day of tennis noise, includin.qvoices, speakers, crowd sounds, traffic soi~nds--without th~ benefit-of .a iair acoustical sound stud~ and mitigation to brin.q this noise within ti~e Palo A!to Noise OrdinanceZ We are asking for suci~ an acoustical stud~ as the staff i~as recommended¯ If the proi.ect is approved b.Li Council a~ technical1.LI qualif.Llin~ unde~ theGeneral-Daytime Exceptior; no sound barrier of a~ t.tlpe i~ r~.quireu and the L;Ity o ~ndependent ~ound cor=sultant lit. Rudk~r= nus pred!~d tt~t ~ later-,, challenge will likely be successfui. The official mitiqated n~.!~ativedeclaration is alread.LI inaccurate. One has onl’LI to stand next to f6ur or five courts in full us~ at Mitchell Park or Rinm:;nada to demonstrate that noise~from five courts are a problem. In the name of fairness to the nei.ghbors we ask that the staff recommendation be allowed to proceed. The History of the Project From the Appellants’ Point of View In 1985 the Citu Council wrote Ba!IotMeasures A and B designed to save 3.74 acres a~’ 3005 and 3009 Middlefield Road from private development. The site had been occupied by the Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Club anu~,inter Lodge i~e Skat~n~ Facility. The passage both measures allowed Winter Cod~e to continue its ~ce skatin~ a~ the facilit~ so lon~ as no Cit~ subsi~ was reauired for its con~inuanceother (~an tI~e ~se of the ~’~dd!efiel~ Road si~e. There was no implied cumn~r, mnt on the ballot, measures to continue either swimmino or ,.ur,n,~ ~, the site. only ice skating. The measures passed by a i~r~e maiorit~. ’ . " On Oune 19. !989 the Cit~j Counci~ chan~ed the zonin~ of the land at the site to ~ublic Facility fro~ Low DensitY-Multiple Far~ii~ Residential (CMR:221:95}. So far as we can determine t~e citq is curren(ly free to do Wl]atever it wishes with the.non-skating property, i.e. 3005 Midd]efield Road. On April 26, 1993 Council approved an RFP for an option to lease the ~ropert~ and’ directed staff to solicit proposals to obtain nei~hborhood-input prior to retur,~ing tu Counci. wi~h a r-ecommendation. Th~i~tent of t!~e RFP was to solicit proposals for a lone-term lease for. the uevelopmen~ anu operation uf a recreational faci~i,y ~ith pub,ic benefit at no’cost to the cirri. After re’r,~iew. City St~ff (CMR: 293:94) recommended that Council reject the two prboos61s submitted because neither responded full~H to th~ intent of the R~P o~ sufficientlu fulfilled the public need to iusl.ifu its cost to the C~t~q or its impa~, on the neiohbors (oage 5~ Th~ recommendation wu~that Counci! direct staff to ~:eevalu~ethe ~ite for other uses and provide staff with the criteria or parameters for alternate uses. in addition staff recommended approval of a BAO in the amount of $30.000 for the remnval of the existin~ pool on the site. We question whether the $30,’000 ~p~nse violated th~ ballot restriction no .cost to the City¯ =At the June 1.3, i994 Council Meetin~ Council Member McCown moved, seconded ~q Andersen, directin9 s~ff to overrule the staff recommendations a~id I) Proceed with ~ose ! of the CS! (Community SkatihQ Incorporated) proposal ~?tith the participation and assistance of the PaTh Alto Tennis ~lub (PATC}, as appropriate and 2) Explore with CSI and PATC. as appropriate, development of the remainder of the site with I low intensity recreational uses that were compatible witI~ the .surrounding neighboM~oods, not includin.q a swimmin.q pool use, that there be no cost to the City and return to tI~e Council w~’tI~ recommendations and 3) adopt a BAO to remove and backfill the s,~,ti,rnrninq pool. An amendment by Council Member Anderson, seconded bN ~,~,I~eele~ directin~ that the tenms courts not be lighted pas~ed5-4, and~the motion passe~, as amended, 9-0. On May I, 1995 Council member McCown moved, seco~ded b~ Huber, to authorize tl~e Mawor to execute ~e Option to Lea~e (OTL~ belv,~een theCity of Palo Alto ~nd CSI for development and operation of a tennis facility at 3005 Middlefield Road. Under the motion, CSI would I~ave a 2tluno uululu v,,,etulo,tlq the OTL.~jear period to satisfy a varietq of condi --~- ~- ......-~ ~~~ . bne condition was further dev~lopment and refinement of bot~ PI~ase I (up~r~din~ and operati~g the TuUr u,,]ot~,,~ ~.ou~to ,~nd completion of thelandsuap~ parking lot)~ and Phase 2 (aO~ition of a ~u-, ~- ~JL,, t.lln~5 court, spec]~l-u,uht :~u~t]n~,. The motionpossible rest rooms, snack bar and. --’ ......" ~. passed 6-1, witl~ Council members ’~--~ ......"~- ~’"" " -- and Simitian express]nQ concerns about the phase 2 proposal. Council’ Members Fazzino and Kn~ss were absent.. Some comments by Council Mere, bets taken from the rninutes at the May I, 1995 Public Hearing: Councll Member Andersen opposed the niotion because the benefits received by the ,c..ommunit.q of additional courts,could be arrived at through alternatik~e wa!js, i"h,e,, additional recreational area was also not of oarticular benefit to’the Y~inter Lodqe. The a~ea-was not dedicated toparkland; therefore, the Cit.q could us3e it in OLher waws. He was not convinced a reconciliation"would take place betwe~-n CSI and the neiohbors Fie was impressed bq tl~e .qenerous nature of the neiqi~bors in ma~’y instances, partic’ularly those on~Ellsworth. Phase 2 was of concern with respect to issues that I~ad been raised. He recoqnized a great deal of effort had been expended, but he was not persuade~ the direction was the t:i~ht one to take. . - ~al o rhaoe 1. d~uncil Member Huber said the staff report indicated r-,~ ,,- ~,. ~. proposal was consistent with Council direction. Phase 2 was conceptual, and both would qo through the process. Council had indicated that Phase 2 was to be oflow infT~nsitq, and he did not consider what had ~een proposed as a done deal. He-had ~erious doubts reoardin~ the Phase 2 proposal. He questioned whether tne fees forusin~’the, c;Surts could be reduced. The lower the number was, the more oppm~tuni’.~y for it to truly be a usage for the com~tunity and acc~ssihlo to e~er’ bodq .Cm~cil member M~Cown said that one of the conditions "~-~.~o further development and refinement of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. She believed if Council supported the action, it was conceptually supporting the direction outlined in the proposal. Therefore. if there was a st~gng belief that a fifth tennis court was absolutely out of the question, discussion needed to take place t!~at t~iqht. .Council Member Schneider had d~e same concerns for Phase 2 as Council Member HubeE and hoped that bq approvinq tt~e proiect, a. private noL bu ut uutuu. ,~ilUL~’~e ~’i 8omembership tennis association would- * ....=-- -" ~’~"-’""’-’" ~ done the neiqhbors sI~ould not be adverselq affected. ~oUncil l’lember Simitian said it was~roubline to hear tI~e debate of the near neiqhbors and operators of the faciiitq wI~o took different views on how the #aci!itq I~ad~een operated. CSI coniended everq[i~inq I~ad beendone tn operate a-faci~it~ that was compatible with thfi nei~hborhood. The ne~Qhbors said CSI h~-~ not made the effort it should it~v~ to be an accomn~:~datinq neighbor. The fact that the same discussion was [aking place tI~at ni~]~t m~de hirn leerq of a fiftla tennis court and its"close prommitu loathe neiqhbors. H~ was not ootimistic when the item O ret~rned .to Council that the same debate would nnt take place again. If ..thi~ Zoning Administrator made the determination through the Conditional Use Permltproce~s and the de~isinn was appealed, tt would work it~ wagtO Council. Giyen the debate which had already ~ccurred, he believed itwas inevitable an appeal would happen, anc~ L;ouncil Would have toultimately’make’the determination.In~ terms of Phase 2, he urged everyone to work more cooperatively.Council Member Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase The community had been clear during the debate about the desire to havethe larger piece of propert.q use,t:for t-ecreational purposes. In qoodfaith, dounci] and CSI had go-~e in the direction to see that plan com-e to fruition. However with respect to the fifth court and its location, she had walked the site and determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase 2 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time bein.q in favor of it. C.SI ~adsaid even with a fifth court, the facilitq would ~ot generate moneLI.5he urged CSI in its future plannin.q for Phas~ 2 to continue to work witn the neighbors to determine a Io~-intensity recreational use for- that corner of the propertY. 1What appellants are asking for now is consistent with man=..i of the above concerns about impact oh the neighbors. CSi and the citq~need t~!:luage accuratelu the impact of the oro~;osed .proiect upon ti~e r~eighbors 6efore building~it. This has not b~en’ done to ~late and is one of the purposes of the study recommended by staff and Mr. Rodkin. As one of the .conditions to exercise the OTL, CSI was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Use Permit 96-UP-I resulted, which included a Miti.qated.Negative Declaration aoproved Maq 31, i996 faro 6foot Sound bar~i-ier at .Price Court. ’ The ’Conditiona~ Use Permit was approved b.q th_~ ~on.inq’ Administrator on ~u~ust 15, 1996.. Subsequentlyfour neighbors ~i~eQ tI~ree separate appeal~ 6f the zoning administrator’s deci ~ ¯.~lon. . . I ) Wei Wan.q., .3054 Price Court 2) John K~ A~raham and Natalie Fisher, 736 E!Isworth Place 3) David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road The Problems With.CSI’s Acoustical Analysis B.e~innin~ with the first hearin~j before the Zonin.q Administrator June 2u, 199~ appellants have objec~ed to CSI’s sound~nal.qsis by Mr. Jeffrey Pack of Ed~,.,ardL. Pack Associates, Inc. Particu|arli~ trou~linq was reference (c) ’Noise Assessment Studg of ti~e Broo~s~i~e Swim.~ Racquet Club, Saratoga" by Mr. Pack, dated September 7, 1,9,u9 upon whichhis sound re!Jort of ~;pril ~, 1996 depended. Mr. Pack refused to provide or even indicate where a copy. of reference (c) could be obtained. Believin.q his report of April 8, f996 underestimated tennis noise at the proposeS’site the appellants hired their own consultant, Dr. Vincent Salmon of. Menlo~Park, durin.q the appeals process to appear before the Plannin.q Commission. The appellants disputed Mr. Pack’s choice of me.ter settin.~-(a,,nd ~ill do), ~r.quin.q that the Pa|o Alto Nuise Oruinance c~ear-,ycalls 1~or ’peaki’ setti,~q f~r ir~pulse noise su’ch as tennis hits. As a .result of the conflicting -acoustical engineering reports the Planning Commission voted on Januar.q 29,~1997 to have staff hire an independent third consultant to review a~oustical information completed to date and comment on pr..o~,osed mitiqation measures. The cost was to be borne CSI. On April io. !997 Mr.-Richard B. Rodkin of the firm of I!!i.ngwor!.hRodkin inc’wrote his. first report. As a result ol various communications, primarily between Mr. Rodkin and Mr. Pack, further engineering reports were generated until the JulH 30, 1997 hearing before the Planning Commission. Fourteen engineering reports to date have been generated by three acoustical engineers for this project. The appellants’ object .to Mr. Pack’s report of April 8, 1996 and his subsequent updates for tile following reasons: The first problem is that tile report,recommended a 6 foot fence at Price Court which is inadequate to protect residents from tennis noise. This is immediately obvious from the fact tIlat an adult serves a tennis ball from a hei~qht of 8.5 to 9 feet above court lust 37 feet from the properties at P~-ice Court. As Mr. Rodkin point~d out. in liis July 10 report, pa.qe 3, a 6 foot wall would be expected to provide 0 decibels of noise attehuation in the case of a 9 foot serve above the ground when the ball is bein.q served. Thus appellants feel ther-e is olent~ of justification for revisin~ the proposed miti.qation to require a’ 9 fo’ot Y,?all at Price Court and as it turns out, at Ell.:~worth Place as well. . A second problem is that Mr. Pack’s ambient study was actually an unattended on-site recording. He believed that no tennis was pla.yed when in fact the courts were and are open to the public and people h~ve been playin!~ there since the Chuck Thompson Tennis Club closed about 1985. I~Ir. Pack has no idea of how man.q people were pla.Liin~ at the courts durin9 the presumed an-ibient meas~j~’ements of June I I.o .-.,, 1996. He used the~fast setting for his ambient data whereas the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance specifies a slow settinq. Since the minimum possible ambient level is 40 decibels, Mr. Rodk-i~; recommended using 41 dBA as the appropriate ambient level for the facility under the regular noise ordinance when considering miti’.qation. Additional problems are tile inaccurate, inconsistent and often undefined distances used at the Palo Alto site in his report and the use of av~raqenoise levels based solely on Brookside Swim & Tennis Club data ~Cii~.q of Sarato.qa). With re.qard to~ the distance to t~he nearestpropert!~ ~,lane, P!-ic~ Court, one ~:~sn reau the distance to :.he nearest sidelin~ of Court No. 4 either fron,, the official drawinq or bq with a tape measure as I did on two occasions. !n all tI~ree ir~s~ances obtains 37 feet for the nearest server, not 46 feet as Mr. Pack claims in his Julq 23 report. . Th~re isalso a technical problem Y¢itll tile tonality (frequency) of tennis ball hits. in Mr. ~ack’s Januar~ 15, 1997 report E~age 3 he remarks.ill reference to the meaourements of~ecember 19 19~6 ’:,~,ith Dr-. Salmonl "The use of, the ’Vibrasorb’ on the rac~kets cIlan.qed the tonality of tile ball hit sound, but had little effect on die level." Dr. Salmor:~ ~)rote in his December 26, 1996 report "Pack also made some pre!iminarq measurements to estimate the frequency of the maximum in the ball Ilia spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near I kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated." Dr. Salmon’s argument in his November 7, i996 report, for 330 Hz also deserves stronq consideration. The importance of the correct tonality lies in de~i’.qnin.q sound barriers. The hioher tile frequenc!] of tennis hit noise, ti;e Ir_i~,er the barrier required to ~’chieve a fixed noi~e standard. The recommended acoustical study can resolve this issue fairly. Tile most troubling problem in Mr. Pack’s report is his stated maximum decibel measurements for tennis flit noise. The data in his sparsel.LI documented Brookside Report represents avera.qe noise, inadequate either to =~.- ....".u~:~gn oOd,=d barriers under the regL~lar nois~ ordinance or to estab!i~~" ’=-~:~:~ GeneraIDautime Exception. Hislevel of 58 dBA at 40 feet from the sideline at ~rookside was found not. to be sufficientlu representative of the variet.q of ~ia.LIer t!~pes expected at thePalo Alto f~cility. Mr Ro~I.-.in found in ll~S Ju~y.~O r~.-~,ort that, (based on 4 Mr. Pack’s awn camments ab,a, ut the "f.ast" settin.qs resulting in readin.qs 15-20 dBA lower than "peak’ settings ), he would expec,t a range of 63tn 77 dBA at "2_5 feet for tennis hit naive. After Hr. Pack~.Jul~I 23, Igg7 last minute report was entered before thePlanning Comm1"ssion, his range of tennis hit noise at 25 feet turned ou,t to b6 64.2 to 73.2 dBA, sliqhtl.LI less than but similar to Mr. Rodkins estimated range. Even wi(hou~L, addressin.cl additional noise due to reflection off hard surfaces and the cumu,lativ~,effect of five courts in action simultaneously plusvoice noise. ,.he iaLter 64.2 to 73.2 ranqe implies substantialIu iiigher noise barriers than Mr. Pack’s original-report of April ~, Iq~6. In particular, Mr. Rodkin has pointed out in his Jul.q 10, 1997 ~-eport that a noise barrier might be required at Ellsworth Place under the regular nois~e ordinance: Given the apparentl.q hi.qher source noise levels basedon ,.he addendum report [of Mr. Pack], ill would appear that the noise ordinance would, also be exceeded at the west property boundary [Ellsworth Placei. A comparable but sIiqhtl.q lower noise ba~-rier would iikel.LI be required.to miti.qate noise levels t6-the ordinance limits at t,he residences to the w’est,-depending upon exactly how and where the ordinance is enforced." Thus Ellsw6rth Place resfdents may also be due t,,It,gat!on under the regular noise ordinance. The General Daytime Exception (GDE) ÷ Appal-enti~4,in response to Mr. Rodkin’s reports and his discussionswith P,r. Pac,<, CSi has decideu ~o abandon the re.qu,ar noise ordinanc,e, and ~nstead at!.empt to aualif.q for "the General D~qtime Exception," tGDE) Section (a,,’ of Secti6n 9.i0.060 wI~ich states I~hat "ANN noise source which does not pFoduce a noise level exceedinq 70 dBA. 91. a distance of twentFI-five feet under its most noisy conditioh of use’ ~.emphasis mine) shal! 6e exempt from the other prowsions between the following hours (coinciding ~,,a~,ly with construction hours): ’-~, huurs,~~Io,, r,, 8 ,,.rn. to o p.m.;12 --.-~:,-~- o to 8 p.m.,tl I hours)._’5~,.,~’ u~u ~- a.m.. SundaH~iLlol]days lO a.rn. tO6 p.m.~o’?’ huu~.-- -.-~o) This exception, it is ar.qued, applies not onl.q to individual tennis hits but also the entire prcTposed tennis proiec[ includin.q bleachers, loudspeakers anu a!l ~inds .o,f voice noise, because only tennis-hit noise isre.L~tricted under the .~alo A~tc, Noise Ordinance accor~Jing to staff. Voice nmse, no matter how harmful, is not restricted. Under the GDE, if deemed applicable to tile Middlefield Proiect, no mitigation of ’anq t!4Pe is required anywhere as Ion!~ as the facilitq restricts tennis playiJetween the above nours. This despite the fact thai mitioation is now required under condition 9 of the zonin.q admi~nistrator’s conditional use permit decision August I, 1996. Staff does not recommend removin,.q the mitigation despite requests to do so from ’CSI. - ’ ’ ~, Mr. P~ck atteml~ted to iustify the adoption of the GDE at the July30,th hearin!~. He di~i not !]a,}e any-data for strong !4oun.q planers in their 20 s and 30s. ’ What his data showed was that a [4 y~ai- o!d girl could equal the 70 dBA limit at 25 feet and the tennis pr6 Mr. O’B~ien could exceed it in 37.5% of his efforts. Mr. O’Brien’s overall avera.qe sound exceeded the dBA limit. As Mr. Rodkin stated at thelevel sliq~tlq 70hearing "Doe~ the Exception apply or not? I look at tl~e data here, i would COnL:’ ",udo’ " no. Because of the wall the thing [noise ordinance] is written." Mr. Rodkin is referrin.q here to tF~e fact that the GDE appiies to "its most -~ ."_ . ~h~_,. means the loudest situation, at thenL’]oy condition of U:-~." and + -+. ._~ facility. Elsewhere he said "My concern is for the city, and for everyoneelse, too, but especially for the city since tt!at is whot_i see as mg rolehere. That is, that an approval on that basis [of the GDE] would appear to likel~q lead to a situation where the findin.q would be made that indeed, the limits for the exception are not met,,O-hCe tennis p]a.LI began, i ca, nsee that tt~at could create some problems. He remarked ~[hatMr. Pack s July 23data mi.qht conceivab].L! be sufficient to desi.qn the quantitativesound lirnits, i.e’, miticlation uf~der the re.qular noise ~_irdinance, althou.qh that is not what Mr. Pa~.l’,~.o~!i.qinall.q intend~d,for his data. ~" The Plannin_q Comrnissi~i~ did’{~ot follo~’, the staff recommendations or the recommehdations of their independ, ent consultant. Instead, the.q -voted to uphold the Zonin.q Administrators ori.qinal decision with th~ following modifications (n~mes of the supportin~Comrnissioners listed): CI~ange hours of operation to .the hours of tI~e general daytime P.~ ~1~. " " _ _~.-,~:_.pt~on, Mon-Fri 8 a.m. ~n 8 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and SundaN and holidaqs 10.~a.m. to 6 p.m.--Beecham SI.atemet~t that the N~dse urdinance must be adhered to--Schink Add a condition for a ~ood neighbor program with meetings, liaison person, etc.--Schm~’dt ~. Move restrooms to between 3rd and 5th courts--Cassel]~, ~1111 II~ Move 5th court 10 feet tL, W~, d:~ ~’l~u~ Lou~u--~.a:~] Place a double lock on courts to be checked at least in the evening b~j a staff person, perhaps morning also-Beecham ,~., r~iakian Negative declaratio~ retained--Byrd -" Thus the Plannin.q Comrnission made a technical de..~t,,,,,at,un that the GDE is deemed to ~ie established. CSI has since asked that the 6 foot wall condition be dropped on the .qrounds that the GDE does not require it. You are beinq asked in the PiSnning Commission recommendation to approve the GZ~E recommendation and1..:eep the 6 foot wall. The staff is recomme.ndir~q that the 6 foot wall be retained. The neiqhbors are askinq that it be in,Ereased to 9 feet for both Price Court and-E!Iswo,.’-th Place-. From Mr’. "~- ~ ~""-",..uu~.-..,,: .=. julu. In.. technical report we belio;.~ a ~nund__ _ barrier is in order for Ellswortii-Place as well as Price Court, and as he noted, mau be of about the sarne hei.qht, dependin.q on exactl!_I how the noise ordinance is interpreted for tl-ds boundary 61any .Matade~-o Creek. California Er~vironmental Equality Act u-.-Q~.) From the completed Environmental Checklist form and Mitigated Negative Declaration signed Ma!-I 30 and 31, 1996 by the Proiect Planner and Director of Piannin.q & Corn~~unit.q Environment ]t is cleat-that (b)(1) below was .found applicable to this pf-T~ject under the CEQA Guidelines: " " ~ From page 68 of the CEQA Guidelines, ~15070: A proposed Nep, ative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subiect to CEOA wI~n either: ~,a..’, The. In]tlal Stud.LI shows that there ]s no substantial ewdence that the project maq I~av~ a sionificant effect on the environment, or (b) .Ti!einitial Study iden(}fied potentially si.qnificant effects but; (i~, Revision:~ in the proiect plans.or propasals rnade bq or aqreed to by the appl.i.c~nt befbre the proposed Ne.qative Deciaratian isreleased for ouulic review would avoid th~ effects or miti!qate the effects: tL~ a point where clearl.LI no si.qnificant effect~ wauld occur, and " (2) There is no substantial evidence before the aqenc.q that tI~e proiect as revised may have a significant ~ffecl. on the env} ronment. 6 Of central importance is the phrase "~ignificant effects" in Appendix G, page 194 of the Guidelines (See copy), particularly ~,, (a) "Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located." This has been interpreted to mean that the project ts allowable if and only if the Noise Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan are satisfied. Mr. Pack’s April 8, 1996 report identified tennis hit noise at the Price Court properties as being in violation of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Hepropooed a 6 foot fence for this boundary to mitigate the otherwise ~llegal noise caused by the project. Thi~ was accep(ed as sufficient by the City, in error, the~appellants belie~e, and hence the 6 foot sound barrier at Price Court ~;ame to be the official Mitigat,.ion for the entireproiect. The Comprehensive Plan was deemed tobe oatisfied once the Noi~,e Ordinance was satisfied and hence the entire project depended upon whether the Noise Ordinance was in fact met with the miti.qation. Protests in the early stages that tennis noise was underestimaled or that the mitigatoion ~as insufficient were rejected on the grounds thatthe complainant., were not competent technically to be credii~le. Appellants have objected repeatedl.q that [he defining criteria for acceptance of this protect are too narroW. While we cannot sa.q w, hy the Cit.LI has restrictedpGssible "significant effects" to para.qralJh ~a) we feel such a restriction is unfair to neighbors and unduly favorable to CSI. in particular appellants feel other Gmdeline "signifidant effects" from Appendix G deserve consideration. In particular, sections (b), (p) and (u). In other words, that the project (b) "Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect" The presence of noise barriers is generally regarded as unsi.qhtly and certainl.q interferes wit,h the enjoyment of ~’he open space nea~6.q and at 3005 Mi~dlefield Road ’ ~ (p) "increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas" .~~,.r. Rodkin pointed out in his Apri! 16 report that it is necessary that someone .should clearly establish the existino tennis conditions through measurements= the~ make a comparison r~ the future total prote~.t generated noise to the existin.q ambient noise. In his judgment "th6 .prolect generated n~ise should ~ot be limited to noise sources re.qulate~I).q (~he Noise Ordi,nance; but should include t.qpical total dailyno~se !evel~; generated by the facility and a credible worst case assessment such as what r~i.qht be expeci~ed during special events at the facility." Mr. Pack’s ambient-data is clearly inadequate to .qua.qe existin.q or future project noise levels and was ~info,r, tunately,.t~ker~ with th6meter set on fast response when it should ha’,/e been olow. It is also unclear in his Brookside data whether maximum noise levels of tennis play w,ere measured using fast or slow meter response.(u) "disrupt Or diviile the ph.qsical arran.qement, of an established communit.LI" A wall at Price Court~ would bloc~ egress to or throu.qh the tennio fac~lit.LI and surrounding public facility land ,/fhich now exists in the form of ~ door throu~ih l~he existing ’A;all. With a noise barrier, residents would be. req~-~red to detour several blocks to reach Middlefield. It would also seem to me that Condition E of the OTL (CMR:221:95) is violated since it reads "OPTIONEE shall have complied with the California Environmental Quality ~Act (CEQA), as amended, and all t-elated CITY procedures for impl"ementin~ CEQA, to .allow the PROJECT to be implemented." Note that the UompreI~ensive Plan Policq 9 of the Noise Element says "Support national and state legislation and-pro.qrams which will reduce noise in c,-,-., u,u Alto." This presumably includes CEOA. Thus the option, originally ~w~rded May I, Igg5 and since extended t.o. M~rch 20, 1998 m.aybe invalid since some or all of the above CEQA ’significanteffects’ have not been considered in the conditional use permit, hence have not been complied with. Problems With The General Daytime Exception for the Tennis Project In our opinion tile sudden decision b.q CSI to tr.q to qualify unde~m the GDE would cause problems for the City o-f Palo Alt~ as well .as pain and sufferin.q for the neighbors. Fir~, it is not established that the GDE applies to the tennis project. As pointed out before, Mr. Pack’s data in his July 23 report derfionstrates that a 14 year old .qirl can meet the GDE limit, a tennis pro can exceed it 37.5% of tile time~f the.q try. No stron.q youilg players in their 20’s or 30’s were tested, nor p~ople active in’other sports, for example. Mr. Rodkin is on ~mecord as sa.qin.q Jul.q 30th that he believed if the proiect is allowed to become oper~tiGiial G~der the GDE, a challenge later would likel.q be sustained. In oth.e.r words, in his estimation, the.GDE would not ap~ly., The reason, as he -Jaid, is the wa.q the ordinance iswritten. The clause ’at its noisiest condition of use" i~ unambi.quous and requires measuring the maximum noise levels at the proposedfacilit.q. Assunlinq on~ hit per court ever.q ten seconds on averaqe there will tupicall~be several thousand hits~a da.q. If the probablili’Lq of a "safe" h~’t, i.e. ~ein.q below 70 dBA.at 25 feet i~, sa~ .995 (or I in 200), then the chance of I~00 such safe hits in a row is .~95 times itself 100 times, ~r .007. This means tha,~,the I:,rnbab!.ilit.q nf a violation of the GDE duMngLhese 1,000 shots is .99~, nearl~ a ~ure’t~iing. Tilis is the result of the clause at its noisiest condition’~,f use." In addition, Mr. Pack’s claim at the hearing on Jul.q 30, 1997 that one court is no noisier than I00 courts in operation~simultaneously is absurd, even discountinp, voice :loise, ’,,,,,,’lli~!~ is obviou~,!.u, additive. If .~ouput a recordinq microph6ne down at an!~ gi,,en ooint, e,,~N tennis hit auds to the measu~’ed noise level, provide~d-the ~:neter is s~t on fast (I/8 second) as required. One has onl~ to stand next to four or five courts in ful! use at Mitchell Park or Rin~onada to demonstrate tIlat five courts are noisier than one. The question is wIlat is the total for real tennis noise for five courts, which has not been rn,e.asured Net. Since tI~e hitsoccur ~mandomlu~ in space and time, there io no pre~Jictin.q total noise based on the. ~neasurements for one tennis hit alone. Th~ anticipated measurements have to be taken under conditions like the proposed facilit!A, includin.q bleachers, electronic speakers durin.q tournaments, lea~,ue~pla~ and~specia! events if they are to be a~lowed at tile Mi d~l efi el d"faci I i ty. The second problem is that tile Cit.q is required to have supportin.q documentation for a, ne.qative declarat~o.n-and cannot !e.qall.q ,~ssum~. si.qnificant it~pacts will~not occur, particularl.q for miti.q~ted~ne.qative de~larations ~.Cf. p. 2,55 & 266 of tile CEQA Guidelines, cop~4 enclosed). If ~’~.~~~! 1~~I~"~i!~nificant impa~ts’io taken to be equi.,~lent to ~iola~in~t,~e noise ordinance there are now 14 en£ineerinq reports.to prove that tI~e oriqinai miti£ated,ne£ative declarStion is fncorrect for the regular noise- GDE opplies to this~o~rticulor proiect. As Mr. Rodkin ~ios pointed out the evidence suqoests otherwise. The cit~3’s dilemma is that there is insufficient~ocumentotion to su~p~-[’~ther ti~L current ~~itigoted _ . E LI ~ c ~ mnjgBtive declaration or the ~DE , or US,, it ~troins all creuulit~j to offero sound woll ~t the beginning, theh discover noise is even worse th~n thouqht, and re~pond b~j ~okin~-~.!]e wall owo~j, which is exoctl~j what the~ ore 0oifi~. An offer ;~f o 9~foot wall at’Price Caught wou~d help on~neiqhborfiood but not Elisworth Place under eitt]er the GDE or regular 8 i noise ordinance. Place. The additional mitigatioii:"{if:a ~9-foot.: Wall f~r-Efl~WO#th..Plac~" "..’ " might enahl~ th~ CitU to avoid .-~U~’~es~1’,~l chall~nQ~".Even thi~ .i~ not’~’ - certain without the recommended-study, although ~t seems much more likely than with a 6 foot sound wall or none at alK . Once the project fails the regular noise ordinance, several programs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are also violated, such as: Pro..qram 33: "Provide agg.r, essive enforcement of the City noise ordinance and Policy 11: "Ensui~e compliance’with existing noise laws and protection of resi~lents from unnecessary noise." TI~,e Comprehensive Plan also encourages sound barriers in Program 37: "Construct noise barriers where, the" impact of noises can be significantly reduced." Note this applies e~en under the,GDE.’ A sharp reading of P~ogram 37~wouldindicate that failure to pro~’ide meaningful sound barriers at EllowortI~ Place and Price Court violates thi~ Comprehensive Plan. ’ ’ Pr,,ogram 35 would support th.e staff recommendation for further Stud.q: ’Anal.LIZe noise impacts of new projects."~as would Program 38: "!mp~:ove cap’~bi~ity to predict noise impacts of proposed activities."If the project fails’the GDE, and Mr. Rodkin would seem to believe it would, then the Cit.q needs to .qo back t’o mitigation under the regular noise Ordinance. I a~ not sa~ing~the project cannot proceed, just th~t an accurate engineeMng study i’~ needed to-know what to do to avoid later probl eros. Findings I and 2 of the Zonin.q Administrator’s decision also fail once the noise ordinance is violated.- ’ Communication Bet.wean the Neighbors and CSI To my knowledge ther.e~is none. There has been no effort by CSI tocontact a~y of the neighbor° about potential problems with the I~roposed tennis pro~ect. ! calleLI Mr. Pack on June 21, 1996 and found that he was unwilling I~o discuss his Brookside Report o~ say even where a copy could be obtained, i found a copy in t~he City of Sarato~ga ~ity Council recordsand entered it into the record in Palo Alto. His’reoponse to questions about the report was "Go talk to the City." On JUI.LI ’17, 1996 I ~attemp~tedto talk to Linda Jansen, Director of CSII About en~ineerin.g queotions °he said "Go talk to the City." Her position seemed t-o be tha-tthe City now operates the courts and CSI is not really involved unti! they have the _~.ase and operate the refurbished court~. They would deal with problem~ at that time. As she .told someone else later, she considered talking to rne an intrusion upon her time. ~ . ’CSI’s current attitude towards the nei.qhboro i.~ hardly improved. In her~A~ugus~t 19, 1997 letter to the Council~Membero and Staff, DirectorJansen ha.. obiected to building the 6 foot sound~barrier at Price Court simply because, the GDE does not require it, quit.e~-aside from whether it would protect, neighbors, from sufferin.q~. Sh~.~ and USi.. .a!s° obectj . io. I) a double Ioc~k, SLIstem on the courts because ~t woulLI Impose theburden of payi~.~g a o, taf~r person to lock .~nd unlock the courts 365 days a year; 2) the .proposed neighborhood meetings at Winter Lodge. CSI is a.qreeing only to appoint at least ’one liaison person to attend the rn-eeti n,.qs; ’ ’ ’ 3,~having a staff member available during tennis hours which are non-bu~.iness hours for Winter Lodge. ~She praters a l-~cordin~q machineand asks neighbors to report any oboer~ed violation~ at th~ facility directlu to the police, and . 4)~oving Court ~ 10 feet closer to Winter Lodge.. 9 In view of the fact that CSI is a non-profit Corporation with assets of $800,000 (Cf. C,M~:221:95, CSI Compiled Financial Statements, April30, 1994) the requeots of the Planning Commission and neighbors do not seem unreasonable. CSI seems to want tile tennis courts as weakly supervised as the CItLI will allow, with the burden .of proof for violations alwa.qs on the nei~jhbors if and when tI~ey can obtain police verification.. As pointed out under tI~e "Historq of Project..." section at the beginnin_q, several Councll Members have-e~,;,ires~d doubts about the 5thcoOrt an~i the impact the project ma.q have on tI~e neighbors and the desireablilty of communication betwe~il ~ie twosides. In fact tI~ere isno communication at all. CSI wants it all on their own terms and is unwillin.q to compromise or ,adjust their plans in the s,li.qhtest toaccomm6date the neighbors. \0,,~e ~elieve the Council will ha~,e~to be the ones to impose fairness on this project. We are askinq that the Council approve the staff recommendation for an acoustical s[udLI to determine whether tI~e GDE applies. In the event, as predicted bLI Pfr. Rodl.-.:in, that the answer is no to the GDE,,the stud.q would tI1en des~qn mitigation forCh~._:. neinhbors~ ~ which . pr~.s~.r~ ~.::; ~ ~ . _.. their~ri, ghts und~.r~ .the’n°is~. .. ordinance. ... Th~s woulu carr.LI out the ~ntent~on of tI~e Counml to be fmr to the neiqhbors. It is ~cessarN.first to do the proposed acoustical study then proceed from U~ei-e. Possible Council Recommendations If the Council is urr,,:;,’illin.q to follow the staff and Mr. ~<od~,11~ recommendations for an accurate, engineering study we then ask: I) That a 9 foot sound barrier be built for Price Court and Eilsworth Place as the minimal height to protect us from the numerous expected 9 foot tennis serves and other noise on the facility. All sound walls must be constructed prior to the court refurbishment. ¯2) We request that electronic sound s’.qstems be banned from the facility and that bleachers, whid~ CSI I~as said will be fleneralIN Unfilled, be replaced with a Simple bench alonfl the ~ideline~. And thai ball throwing machines and practice wa{~s be prohibited. 3) That the double lock sqstem be retained ~ith a real person to enforce it. People .are ~fot ~oin9 to interrupt a good flame on their own volition just to close ~he ~acilitN down. ~ TI~a~ the neiflHborIlood meetinqs be I~e~d at Winter Lodge_. Tha~ there fie a staff person~on duty and available [o nei~I~bors ~,~,ith authority to~ make corrections at the proposed tennis facility during, all hours of operation, reflardless of whether Winter Lodge ~’~ open. " 6) CSI shal{ ue prohibited from scheduling special events ~imultaneousIN at ~,~inter Lodge and the Tennis Faciiit~ su as to, ,- ,, ~ ~ZL," , _.~.. .,o~e, ta,, tl~ pa, ,,~nq t,~, l]t.e~, 7)That at least one-day per week be set aside for rest for the neignbors from their iz hour a dart,,7, hour~ per ~Ye~k bu,-d..,~, durin~ whicI~ no tennis would be ail~wed at the faci!itN. 8)That’~o more than 2 tournaments or special events b~ scheduled in any 3 month period, 9] ~ -~ ....,- inn ,Nu mut~ th~,~ ,..~, i, ey., be outstanding and that a three s,rikes plan ue in.~plemented for violations by keyholders; I0) that CSI arrange to ask police to obtain names of any violaters and that CSI be qiven tI~ose names and use them in Lheir three strikes p!~.~. !O ! i ~,.10.060 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.050. Said excep- t!ons shall apply only to the extent and during the hours specified in each of the following enumer- ~’..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 the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and hoiidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six p.m. (b) Const.raction. Except for construction’on ~sidential property as described in gubsection (c) of this section, construction, alteration and repair ~-ctivities, which are authorized by valid city por- mit shaft be allowed between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.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 ".mdividuai 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 slructure 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. Posting notice of construe- don hours is required. The holder of a valid con- suruction permit for a construction project within this city, which project is located within five h..un- dred feet of any residential zone, shall post a sign at all entrances to ~ construction site upon com- mencement of construction, for the purpose of informing 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. (B) Said sign shall read as follows: CONSTRUCTION HOURS (includes any and all deliveries) MONDAY--Ftg~. AY ....8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. SATURDAY ...............9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. SUNDAY/HOLIDAYS.. 10:t30 a.m. to 6:00 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- outed. P.A.M.C. §9.10.060(b). (c) Construction on residential property. Consmactiort, alteration, demolition or repair ac- tivities constructed on residential property, au- thorized by valid city. permit, shall be allowed only dua~n." g 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 (I) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise levd 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 frum the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the pn~perty plane of the project shall not exceed one hundred ten dBA. 908 the one set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. Before the adoption of re- vised App I in 1994, these forms did not call for an explanation of all answers in the checklist, and thus did not reflect the judicially devel- oped requirement that an initial study must show the basis for disputed findings that a project will have no significant impacts. This judicially developed requirement reflects the need to provide a court with a viewable record showing the factual basis for the agency’s decision when a negative declaration is challenge. See Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 CA3d 296, 305, 248 CR 352, 357; Citizens Ass’ n for Sensible Dev. v County oflnyo (1985) 172 CA3d 151~ 217 CR 893; §6.18. Although this rule has been applied only to initial studies that resulted in adoption of a negative declaration,, it may also apply when a lead agency relies on an initial study to define the scope of an EIR (see §6.21). This requirement is now reflected in both the Guide- lines (14 Cal Code Regs §§15063(d)(3), 15063(f)) and the Guidelines checklist form (App I). ¯ ¯ - -~§6.18 a. Reliance on Bare Bones Initial Study The courts have established that a legally defensible negative decla- ration must provide some explanation of its environmental conclusions. "This requirement prevents lead agencies from conducting a superficial "~,analysis of a project’s potential impacts in the initial study and then ../defending their decision to adopt a negative declaration by pointing to the absence of evidence of any significant environmental injury. ¯- "As the court explained in Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. v Coun~ of lnyo (1985) 172 CA3d 151, 171, 217 CR 893, 906, when an¯initial study checklist functions as the agency’s findi~, gsfor a negative .... ~_..-.~.:~....,.-._,,..,:::: ,,...~declaration, the checklist must be supported by evidence in the admin- .--.......’-..-,istrative record. Although conclusions on potential m~pacts may ~ shown in a checklist, the bare conclusions provide no basis for judi-’". cial review. To be relied on as the sole support for a negative declara- tion, an initial study must disclose the data. or evidence on which the persons conducting the study relied.. ,,---" Similarly, in 5undstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 CA3d 296, 248 CR 352, the court rejected a negative declaration that was .. supported only by a bare’bones environmental checklist. There w~ ~’~ ’ no indication in the, record of the source or content of the data that e~~. .2", county staff rehed on m prepanng the checkli,st, nor was there an ©,.,x..~ planation of the initial study’s conclusion that potentially signific~ C. Adequ~cy’of Initi~il study’~ "",’~" §6.16 1. Technical Compliance An initial study that is materially"defidient ma~ not be :~....7. to support a negative declaration. See Chris~..a.rd Ministry v S,upen.’ori Court (1986) 184 CA3d i8.0, 197~ 228 CR 868, 877, Technical defects in an initial study are hot fatal if flaky are not"prhjudi"ciall i~(~nning ~..:.,.,,.:.:- Fence Corp. v Superior Court (1975) 51 CA3d 400, 427, 124 CR " 339, 358. If the agency’s decision is based onevidence in addition ..., .... to the initial study, that evidence can cure deficiencies in the initial.~:"~i:--":"5~:".,.... ...~..study. Gentry v Ory of Murrieta (1995) 36 CA4th 1359, .!379, 43 ¯ ...CR2d 170; Leonoff.v Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990)’"’::222 CA3d 1337, 1347, 272 CR 372, 376. This follows from the:: .:.....fact that the agency must base its decisionon wh~ther to adopt -.’a negative declaration on the entire record, before it. See §6.19. PRACTICE TIP 2. Attorneys for the project applicant and the lead agency should review the initial Study carefully -to ensure that the minimum req~irements :6f : the CEQA Guidelines have be~ri ---should containeach element ~equired by 14 Ciil ",Cod~.Regs §15063(d)."See§6.10J If achecklist ’.:is ti~ed for ~e ifiitiaI sttidy-form,--it"should inz :~ elude;at ~i mmimulia,all poiential environmental r.issues listed in the.sample.:checklist in Guide-". ¯ ~:.lin~s.. "App.I,~unless a topic.is el~arly irrelevant ¯ .:~-.to :the :"pr’0ject tiiider. review. -: Each :qi]estion ¯ in ::. Most public agenbies use an environmental impacts would be fully mitigated. Describing the checklist as a "token of C .OA r quir m nt , ourt h.ld t at ounty could not de,f,end a negative declaration simply by producing a.reeord devoid of evidence on.environmental impacts. The court explained that the agency has the burden of investigating potential impacts. To suppor~ a negative declarationl the record of its action must demonstrate, and not assume, that.significant impacts will not occur. Moreover, when a mitigated negative declaration is proposed, it is particularly important that the study fully describe the mitigation measures and explain how they will avoid the project’s potential impacts. This rule does not mean that an initial study must be a mini-EIR based on expert studies, of all. potential environmental impacts. The negative declaration process is intended’ to proyide a streamlined procedure, for .reviewing a project subject to CEQA. Accordingly, an initial study checklist is sufficient to support adoption of a negative ’declaration if it is annotated to show the conclusions reached on the environmental topics of concern, and the conclusions need not be amplified unless there is some reason to dispute its conclusions. Leonoff v Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 CA3d 1337, 1347, 272 CR 372, 376. An initial study need not disclose evidence to support each and every one of its findings. Gentry v City of Murrieta (1995) 36 CA4th 1359, 1370, 43 CR2d 170, To avoid a possible challenge under Sundstrom, however, it is a wise practice to disclose evidence supporting at least the major findings in the initial study. PRACTICE TIP blost decisions to approve a negative declaration are so clear-cut and uncontroversial.that the lead agency can. rely on the App I checklist and supporting references, .without extensive ex- planation. If a project is controversial, however, or there is a potential for disagreement about " possible .. environmental impacts, the agency should ensure that a dear explanation of the evidentiary basis for the checklist’s conclusions .is provided, at least with respect to each dis- . puted environmental issue. ..-- ~ :~...-.-. CO)The prbject has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantagg of long-term environmental goals. (c).The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumuli- tively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the ¯ incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21083, Public Resources Code, Formerly Section 15082. Oizcugsion: This section provides additional explanation of the mahdatory findings of significance required by the Legislature in Section 21083.. These mandatory findings control not only the decision of whether to prepare an F_JR but also the iden~fication of effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR, the requirement to make detailed findings on the feas~tlity of alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the significant effects, and when found to be feasible, the making of changes in the project to lessen the adverse environmental impacts. This section is necessary to insure that public agencies follow the concerns of the Legislature in determining that certain effects shall be found significant and then take the actions at the different stages of the process that are required with significant effects. Article 6. Negative Declaration Process Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration 15070. A proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either: (a) The Initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or Co) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where dearly no significant effects would occur, and (2)There is no substantial evidence before’the agency that the project as revised may have a sighificant effect on the environment Note: Authdrity dted: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code; Friends orb Street v. City of Hayward~ (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988; Running Fence Corp. ~. Superior Court, (197S) $1 Cal. App. 3d 400. Formerly Sections 15083(a) and 15080(d)(2). Discussion: Section 15070 substantially mirrors the language of Public Resources Code section 21080(c). Under subsection (a) a Negative Declaration shall be adopted when the initial Study shows that the project may not have a significant effect on the envirohraent- Subsection (b) states that the Negative Declaration shall be adopted When two conditiom are met:. (1) the project orplan or proposals as agreed to by the applicant prior to public review of the proposed Negative Declaration has been revised to avoid significant effects or the effects have been mitigated down to a point where the effects are dearlyinsignificant and (2), there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect.. S0bsection (b) reflects the concept of the so-called "Mitigated Negative Declaration." A Mitigated N.egative Declaration is ~iot intended to be a new kind of document. It is merely a Negative Declaration prepared in a slightly different situation. The Guitlelines would continue to give Lead Agencies the option of allowing applicants to modify their project~ so that the Lead Agency could make a finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment as proposed. 68 ; GUIDELINES . .APPENDIX. G \- SIGNIFICANT EFFE6T. 3 ¯A project will normally have a significant effect on the enviro~nent if it will: ¯(a)Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the comnunity wh’ere it is located.;. (b) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; (c) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; (d) Interfere substa.tially with the. movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; (e) Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid Waste or litter ~ontrol; (f) Substantially degrade water quality; ¯ (g) Contaminate a public wate~ supply; (h) Subs£antially degrade or deplete ground water resources; (i) Interfere substantially with ground water recharge; (j) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic, or cultural significance to a co~I~unity or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study; (k)Induce substantial growth or concentration of population; (I)Cause an increase in traffic which is subst~nt[al in relation to the exist- ing traffic load and capacity of the street system; (m) Displace a large number of people; (n) Encourage activities which result %n the use of large mnounts of fuel, water, or energy; (o). Use fuel, water, or energy in a wasteful m~.n.ner; Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; Cause substantial ’flooding, erosion or siltation~ Expose people or structures to ~m~or geologic h~z~rds; Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development; Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; ¯ Create a potential public health h~zard or involve the use, production or dispos~l of m~terials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected; (w)Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scien- tific uses of the area; (x)Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; (y)Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land; (z) Interfere with emergency response plans or ~nergency evacuation plans. (P)(q) (r) (s) (t) "..-~ (u) " (v) 194 [omrnents from Natalie fi.sher re.gardin.g proposed lennis facilily $00.5 Middlefield Road, for Council hearing Seplember 15, 199# at The Council requested in 1994 that the site in question be used for low intensity recre~tic--.n use, particularly phase 2. The neighbors hoped this wo=J~! be the case. Gut the proposal before you is for very high ......... ,,.~ use, probably in excess of what the Council had envisioned. I would like !o point, out that, the neighbors were never consulted by ~,.~ ~pp!ica.r.,t. or by the City as to possible uses for this site. Not having ~he resources to sub~it an request for proposal, we were sidelined. Xo’.’.;e’--~.er, the neighbors do have various ideas for this site. I personally think ~- good use fo_~ this site might be a small community center s~rrour=ded b!~ a community garden. The center could, be small and haue one room ~or exercises such as taichi or aerobics and another room for table ÷~’-=-~;<-,.~,,:,== and ~,,,,,~,~~>"~~=. =i, cou!d also be a place for community meetings. ~o~,, ÷~.~-:,:~. site could be used as a small park. We have nothing ~r,,- --:--.his side ,~-+ Middlefieid Road and ~ ~ -o--:.,. r.:,,,l~t,_.n who liL, e here play in the .:--tr~els ~ fro~+,. of their homes rather than try to cross l~liddlefie!d. r_~_.~e~ adult.:_--- haL.~e difficuit~ crossing over to Hoover Park. ............ ~,n~. I b~li~n~ mi~7iic~iio~ of ih~ ~xc~ilior~ for ~,~ "~ hn~ii~, lh~ ~0 ~t~ iimi! wil! ~ol b~ ,,=. . ~ .... ~i_~d set an u,,d~.sh aD,~. precedeni. The staff report of dur-..e !.. i 972 regardi~ the orooose~ iloise oi-dh’lance (signed by Charles Walker, acting assislant cit.y manager.’i discusses +,he daytime exception onl,g in regards to equipment.., such as pneumatic d,-~’~ .jacki~ammers, and leaf b .~ ..... Pa.qes 3 and -I of ibis report talk~ Mr: Pack’s dui.~ report in support, of ihe daylight exception actually makes ii clear lhat. ~he excep-t.i,~r, does ~iot. ~.pply, as some of the of ~s~": Mr: Pack’s reporl i~ lolally inadeluale for delerminiag what the nois~ levels wi!l ~--~"~"....,~,.,~,,~ be, and what mitigalions would be needed, under ihe acluai ~ro~osed piar~s for ~he faci!ily - which incledes league play an~l tournaments with spectators. It is certainly not true, as alleged, that no more noise would be generated by 16 players in five courts used simultaneously (including doubles) than Would be generated by 2 peopie using I court. You can determine this yourself by visiting the courts at Rinconada, Mitchell Park or elsewhere. A valid study would have to estimate real conditions of the new facility and not just noise from one court a!one. This study would include data from locations such as Stanford or Mitchell Park or a tournament at ,~inconada. Also, we request the opportunity to have our sound en:_~ineer present at the tests. We agree with the staff that an independent consu,’.t~.nt do the st~Jdy. Whether the regular noise ordinance or the daylight exception is used.~ the =- =~-= --~--~ ..............1m,:,._q~,u.u n~.[la~i~;e :~-’,~:-"~:~fi-~- requires revision and public review ~ the ~-~v;:~inn ~i~ the .oo==~d consultants agreed that 6 feet is inadequate for a barrier at Pr:~ce Court. _-’--lie have been told repeatedly that the noise ordinance does not cover ..=o=._.e noise :n an ol~en s~or-~s--’=~ce noise. There is a ~reat deal of ,, ~o -.. facility, i~ the municipal code on noise, 9.i0.0!0 The Dec~ar~Uon ~o!ic~ s~ates that citizens are ~o be protected "from excessive, ~,,,~.,.~,,~ noises from nay and ail sources community.., it is the in~entio9 o- f, ~he citu.~ council to control the adverse effects of sech noise sources on the citizen under any condition ~,~ an~ ~=~ ~ording. in the staff report of June 1972 regar~in~ the noise ordinance draft,. ,, ~* is written on page. ~- . .~,~..(CMR:304:2h the standard being .=~sc ....sod "would apply equaily to noise sources of ~i types -- people, stereos, animals an~ tools". ! believe that CEQA also requires protections from al! kinds of noise. Nowhere in the noise ordinance do I read that uoices cannot be considered and fact voice noise was considered, for example, in the expansion of the YMCA, and in the use of live music at Q-Care. We have a lesser problem with the children’s tennis lessons and the key p’,a~ers= But we know t~at the inf.ensive use for competitive play and the long hours includin~ ho!ida=js wili make our lives miserable. We urge the Council to ~-is~|io,.---’.~ lea~-~e p!ay, ~ournaments and doubles matches a~ this si~ and ~ restrict ~he hours to: 9am-Spm Mondays ~hrou~h ~urd~ys~ arid 1~am-6pm on Sundays and hoiidays. We ask ~ no amplffi~ sound s~s~ems be allowe~. We also reques~ ~he ban source o~ noise ~hich put ~he tennis ~acilit~ over the top o~ their ,,~mance limits and the walls mer~ ............ *’" removed). There is a requirement in the Code (18.32.070)that a I 0 foot landscaped !=lard be situated between a creek and the property line. Ellsworth Place is across t~atadero Creek from the tennis site. But this condition is not |rlciude~J for the tennis faciiity althou~jh it was for the YMCA. Firi~!i~: the ~.omprehenSiL~e P!~ states that studies have shown that a,. types ef normal ~istening activities. No~e ~so causes s~c~ subt~ effects ~s ~straction, a~noyance, stress an~ ~-~~.,,~,~,,. If these effects are continued,, they can cause very serious- emotlonal ~nd n--.{r-~ .~ i.~i ." ,.No,~ ~ ’ ~page~ ..~..,,o.og,c~, oreb{ems.Element, 5Oi. T~e ~ht exception allows 70 dBA. ~e urge further studies at the minimum and/or a reduction of the ~Jses and hours proposed. ~e ~re struggling here for our homes an~ for the quality of our lives. Th~s is very serious to us. There are many tennis courts in Paio Alto but ~e NOTE: ti.’_-.~_se read ÷"o " . .............. ,,,e YMC.A as they compared to ~hat cgnditio~s ~e were gi[~en in the CSI ~se permit. This , ...n,,~d h. in your gackets. It is attache~ to m~ ~etter of ~g~st ! 997: Attachment 12 RECEIVED AIJ~ ~ 0 1997’ De~rtment of Planning and Community Environment Lodge 3009 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California94306 (650)493-4566 August 19, 1997 Council Members and Staff, CSI is pleased to be moving ahead in the use permit approval process. We are looking forward to be bringing to fruition the will of the voters on Proposition A and B in 1985, and at last, once again having organized recreation on the old Chuck Thompson site. CSI, the group that operates the Winter Lodge is a 501(C)(3) Public Benefit non profit corporation whose primary beneficiary is the City of Palo Alto and its residents. It is assumed that if approved, the primary governing condition will be the Daylight Exception. The board of CSI is in general agreement with the basic findings of both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, except in a few cases where the two sets of conditions are ambiguous or overly restrictive. We ask for clarity on the following conditions and address possible alternatives to the certain conditions listed below. 1)ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S CONDITIONS Condition #2: 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 Sunday. Response to Condition #2: This condition is superseded by the Daylight Exception. The hours will be shortened to comply with Daylight Exception. Condition # 5: Personnel of the tennis facility shall be available during all business hours to address neighborhood concerns regarding noise, at the facility. 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 Palo Alto Planning Division and shall be made available by the operators of the tennis facility to any interested party upon request. Neighbors disturbed by noise during business and non-business hours may also call the Palo Alto Police Department with complaints. Response to Condition #5: Personnel shall be available during all Winter Lodge business hours to address concerns regarding noise at the tennis facility. During Winter Lodge non-business hours a phone number shall be.made available with a 24 hour recorder. We feel it is unreasonable to hire personnel to work during Winter Lodge non-business hours whose only purpose is to wait for a tennis complaint call. If tennis is being played after allowable hours, the persons are trespassing and the police should be called. Condition #,~." The applicant shall implement the recommendation on page 5 of the acoustical analysis done for the project, hereby incorporated by reference, to require the applicant to construct a six-foot high wall along the entire length of the north property line. If all or a portion of the existing fence is to be used, the applicant shall show that the fence section is a least 6 feet above the finished elevation of the tennis courts and that it complies with the requirement to be "air-tight". All other fencing on the site shall be constructed as shown on the plans received~April 2, 1996, on file in the City of Palo Alto Planning Division office. Response to Condition #fl: This condition is superseded by the Daylight Exception per the Planning Commission. When the Daylight Exception is in effect, the noise ordinance and its mitigations are not applicable. 2)PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS Condition B: The applicant will appoint a neighborhood liaison who may be contacted by neighbors of the project site during all hours of operation and during special events to voice complaints about noise violations or other disturbances. The liaison will be provided the authority to correct any violation of the use permit conditions and to make every effort to avoid disturbances to the neighbors. The name and phone number, and any changes thereto, of the liaison will be provided to the Zoning Administrator so that the City has continuous notice of the identity of the liaison. Response to Condition B: A staff’member will be available during all Winter Lodge business hours. During W’mter Lodge non-business hours the phone number shall be available with a 24 hour recorder to take detailed complaints. After Daylight Exception hours, the police should be called. (See Zoning Administrator’s Condition #5. This covers the same ground) Condition C: The applicant will schedule regular meetings with the neighborhood, a minimum of one every six months, to review and 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. Following the first year of semiannual meetings, the meetings may be held once yearly, with consent of the neighbors. Response to Condition C: We would request neutral territory such as city hall for these meetings and a city facilitator to be present. CSI will appoint one or more persons to act as liaisons to attend these meetings. Condition E: A second lock shall be added to all entry and exit gates and an employee of the facility shall be required to close the facility each night. Response to Condition E: There are a few problems with this condition, besides the obvious unduly burdensome cost of paying a staffperson solely to unlock and lock the courts365 days a year. This double lock system poses some serious safety issues and possible egress law violations. We believe the Zoning Administrator’s Condition #4 to be more practical and implementable. We already have devised methods for tracking violators and keeping people from entering before or after hours. Condition F: Court #5 shall be moved 10 feet southward (closer to the Winter Lodge facility). Response to Condition F: The Fire Marshall will not approve such a move because it cuts offthe fire lane and access to the rest of the parcel including the park and Winter Lodge property. Uniform fire code mandates at least 20 feet for fire access. As stated earlier, we agree with and ask you to uphold the decisions of both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission and finally grant the use permit for tennis on this site. We thank you for your time and look forward to serving the community and enhancing Midtown with this quality recreational facility. Very truly yours, Lind~~/~’~-~ on behalf of CSI Board of Directors L//lm Attachment 13 I I I I I NIGKi" SERVICE -- Jeremy Law, 16,lighted tennis courts. The family uses thu serves to his mother, Pale Alto school Riconada facility throe to four times a teacher Mary Law,. at Riconada Park’s week, Daily News photo by Susan Bradley. New ,facility brings courts Palo Alto, but no lights courts, spread out in parks and atBY ELAINE GOODM&N~.o ~o o~,~ Ne~s sv~=schools. The mo~t popular, of those am A new tennis, facility planned for theMidtown neighborhood will give play- ers a place to participate in tournaments,take lessons, have a picnic and use a rcstroom. BUt tile plan won’t fill Pale AIto’s need for more lighted courts. Pale Alto has about 60 public temds TENNIS. flock there after work, Ant[ the demand intensifies during the spring and fall months when it gets dark earlier, Brees said. "Lit outls are very popular," Brees said. The wait for a court varies depending on the particular night, Brees said, But if a player is willing to drive around town to the different courts, the ’delay is rarely longer than a half hour, be said. Meanwhile, Community Skating Inc. m the group that runs the Winter Lodge ice skating rink -- is close to gaining approval for renovating the courts at the old Chuck Thompson club site at 3009 Middlefield Road.The four existing cot~rts will be resur- faced and a fifth court added. A seating area, public restrooms and a picnic area will b¢ built. No lights In Mldtown The courts will be available to players who purchase a key for $100 per year, those who sign up for lessons, and partic-ipants in tournaments sponsored by the Pale Alto Tennis Club and the U.S. TennisAssociation. ¯ In response to Pale Alto’s request for applications for a recreational use of the site, Community Skating fii~t proposedlighted courts and a swimming pool, according to Linda Stebbins Sensen, Com-munity Skating’s director. . Bul to avoid disturbing neighbors, citycouncil asked Community Skating to remove the lights ~nd the pool from its the 19 that have lights -- at Rinconada Park, Mitchell Park and Pale Alto High School, according to city Recreation Supervisor Dave Brees. Those courts fill up quickly starting at about 5 p.m. on weekdays, as players FROM PAGE 1 plans, Jcnsen said. The courts are now equipped with lights that aren’t turned on. Club could ,olflflbutoSince CommunRy Skating’s focus will be on daytime children’s lessons, theabsence of lights won’t.cut into its plans too much, Jensen said."We’re definitely concentrating On the children’s lessons," Jensen said. ’ That leaves the six courts at Cubberley Community Center as the remaining can- didates for receiving lights, said Brees of the city recre.adon d¢partment. Chuck Bradley,- vice president of the, Pale Alto Tennis Club, said’ his organiza-tion has earmarked $15. ,000 to.use toward’lighting at Cubberley. The cost of installing lights would likely come to $45,000, he said. Tui chl instead?Comtnunity Skatlng’s pwposal for the Midtown tennis courts comes before citycouncil next month. The plans had rcceived city .appro.val, but were appealed by neighbors concerned about noise. Thecity Planning Commission last week rec- ommended denying the appeal and allow-ing the plans to move forward. Wei Wang, one of the Midtown resi- dents appealing the project, said she’d prefer a less intensive use of tile site. With the number of elderly people living in thearea, a stress-r~iieving activity such as chi would be more appropriate, she said.’q’hat would be more of an asset than tennis," Wang said. Midtown tenn .s proposal advances despite noise fears BY ELAINE GOODMAN . picnic area and public restrooms wouldPA, o Atro o~,v news srm~also be added. Despite concerns of neighbors about boisterous tennis tournaments and the thwacking of tennis balls, the Pale Alto Planning Commission has recommended approval of a private tennis facility in Midtown. Community Skating Inc., the firm.that runs Winter Lodge skating rink, wants to refurbish the tennis facility next door at 3009 Middlefield Road. Its plans call for resurfacing the four existing courts and adding a fifth. Bleachers for spectators, a The facility would be available to those who purchase a key for about $100 per year, and would be used for lessons and tournament play. The courts would only be used during daylight hours. "I think it would be a good asset to the community," said Pale Alto Planning Commission member Jon Schink. The project now heads to City Council. For Midtown residents who attended the Planning Commission meeting See TENNIS, page 22 TENNIS Wednesday night, the prospect of tournaments raised the most concern. Lessons vs, tourneys "You can’t have a crowd of 100 people and not make noise. It’s impossible," said Wayne Liu, president of a Middlefield Road home- owners association. Ellsworth Place resident Jane Hayes said that Com- munity Skating was using children’s lessons as a smokescreen, and that the main purpose of the facility was tournaments. "They’re using kids as an excuse -- as a way to tug at our heart strings," Hayes said. Jack Morton of Commu- nity Skating disputed that tournaments played at the site would be noisy. Rather than being filled with spec- tators, the bleachers will mainly be used by parents watching their children’s lessons, Morton said. "It’s just a convenience for [he users," Morton told the commission. "We don’t expect the bleachers "to have more than a few peo- ple at any one time." Tennis tournaments played at the site would fall into two categories, accord- ing to Chuek Bradley, vice president of the Pale Alto Tennis Club.: U.S. Tennis Association "tournaments would take place once per week during evenihg hours .fr~i April through Sep- tember, drawing roughly 12players: and 6 spectators~ Bradley s~id,. In addition, the Pale AltoTennis Club would host eight weekend tournaments each year,, bringing about 70 people to the facility, Bradley said. Noise Issue settled. The commission’s rec- omme.nded approval of the project put an end to an extended battle over whether the tennis courts would comply with the city’s noise ordinance. A consultant hired by Com- munity Skating said that sound produced by tennis players wouldn’t exceed noiselimits, but an analyst paid by neighbors conclud-. PALO ALTO DAILY NEWS 21 ed otherwise. Results of a third, independent study were incomplete, according to city planning staff. Commissioner Owen Byrd compared the com- mission to a jury presented with conflicting testimony from experts on both sides of a case. The commis: sion’s job is to sort out the evidence, he said. "This facility would be within our noise ordi- nance," Byrd said. ;;kPALO ALTO DAILY N .WS dent consultant found it likely that the~’~ exception limits would be exceeded.~ Worse yet, only an inadequate wall is’pro- posed and many neighbors would suffer terribly with an average of I1 hours of noisy tennis every day for seven days a week. I think Palo Alto can do better than this.Community Skating may yet have tennis courts, but the city needs to estimate accu- rately what the impact on neighbors really . is.John K. Abraham, Palo Alto I- dtown.-tennis Dear Editor: The recent tennis decision by the Planning Commission is a case where nontechnical people were forced to make a largely technical decision. At an earlier meeting, commission members threw up their hands in frustration, called for and got an independent study, and then couldn’t or wouldn’t accept what their own expert was recommending. Impatient with any more technical, discussion, they simply opted for a quick fix -- full steam ahead and fi)rget the neighbors. The loophole that they agreed to -- the general daytime exception -- must be eval- uated at its noisiest condition of use. As Community Skating’s consultant demon- strated with friendly players, a 14-year-old i girl can meet the limit; a tennis pro can exceed it over one-third of the time if he ’tries. Should the project proceed, the indepen- ,- Tenn;s,- :s project gains advantage But neighbors to Palo Alto facility gain conditions to control noise For nearly two years now, plans, to refurbish four tennis courts andinstall one new court at the old Chuck Thompson’s tennis facility on Middlefield Road have beenmired in a debate over decibels and sound engineering methodology. At a lengthy Planning Commis- sion hearing last week, Midtown residents and tennis court operatorsfound themselves debating whether the noise from tennis players would fall within the limits of permitted "daytime Palo Alto fun," as onespeaker put it. The city’s noise ordi- nance sets the daytime threshold at 70 decibels.Nearby residents of the proposedfacility, which .is located next to the Winter Lodge ice skating rink, are concerned about the sounds of bouncing balls, squeaky sneakers and spectator cheering. Since last August when neighborhood groups appealed the city’s granting of a (continued on page 15) ~ -- Palo Alto Weekly ¯ Wedfiesday, August 6, 1997 * Pag~ Tennis . (conlJnued from page 131 permit for the t~nnis facility, acous-tical analy~es have been conduc~l by three separate sound engineers. Last Wednesday, though, ’aftermore than two hours of public testi- mony, the Planning Commissionmoved the 1g-month tennis court or- deal closer to an agreeable conclusion.The commission mumimoasly rec- ~nmended approval of granting Com- munity Skating, Inc. (CSI), which op-erates the grmter Lodge, a conditional use pehnit to zed~velop the outdoor tennis facility. The new facility on city-owned land will be open to thepublic for lessons and play. The City Council, which will make the final call in the dispute, is tentatively scheduled to review the commission’s recommendationsnext Monday, Aug. 11. CSI wants 1o z~furbish the existing "four tennis courts, add a fifth one and create a small public park area com- plete with restroom facilities accord- ing to Chuck Bradley, vice president of the Palo Alto Tennis Club. Five courts are required to hold USTA-league tournaments. Bradley said he hopes the new facilities will offer refief on other Pnlo Alto public courts for public play. The Palo Alto Tenhis Club sponsors eight tourna- ments a year. Three neighborhood groups ap- pealed the zoning admmislramr’s cision to grant CSI its permit last Au- gust. While their appeal was denied by the Planning Commission Wednesday, residents did gain some ground when the commission recom- mended additional conditions to the permit to minimize noise disruptions. ¯ These amendments include puttingzn a second lock system at night to ensure that the courts are resU’icted to daytime use. The commission also recommende~ that CSI be required to hold regular meetings with the neigh- borhood. Restroom facilities will beplaced farther away from adjoining residences. A proposed fifth tennis court will also be moved away fromthe residential homes and five to 10 feet closer to the skating rink; The latter change came after home-owner Wei Wang explained that the proposed fifth court would only be 20 feet from her home. Sh~ said shefeazed for the safety of people in her back yard and windows which may be broken by stray tennis balls. The Planning Commission, after seeing the reports, concluded that thefacility’s noise level would be accept- able under city regulations. Yet many residents still quesdon the motivation behind building another tennis courtin Pnio Alto, noting Ihat there axe al- ready 61 courls at 12 sites in the city. "I just don’t understand why theywant to do this when none of the residents want this project to be car- tied out," Wang said. ¯ mTherese Lee | o Coml issf0n sfi-pp or for tennis center expansion ¯ TENNIS from Page 1B bad as it would be if the courts received the planned amount of use. "A few people play here at times, but that’s a totally differ- ent situation from the project," Fisher said. "That noise is noth- ing. These courts are right at our back yards." Fisher said the tennis ’facility e.xpm~sion could blSng back the problems that plagued neighbors when the lodge operated a now- defunct summer swim facility called Chuck Thompson’s swim and tennis center. Before the swim club closed in 1995, the noise from the combined uses drove neighbors inside, away from the noise of tennis games and swinmfing kids. "This will be double or triple the problenks we hadwith Chuck Thompson," Fisher said. But Jensen, along with sound experts hired by the city and the lodge, said the noise will not be ranch ,greater than it is no.w. "The property has been in use for 42 years," Jensen said. "I just don’t see it becoufing a problem." The tennis courts would be used between 8 a.m. and dusk during the week and 10 a.m. and dusk on holidays and weekends. Acce~ to the courts would be limited to people with keys, which are scheduled to be doled out to citizens who pay a $i00 annual fee. The city took control of the lodge in 1986, when voters agreed to swap land near High- way 101 for the landmark club. The swimming pool was closed permanently in 1995, leaving no significant summer activity. Jen- sen said the four courts operating now are underused. Cl’l Y OF PALO ALTO PLANNING DEPARTMEN’I P.O. BOX 10250 250 .~IAMILTON AVENUEpAl:O ALTO, CA 943~q3 Lisa Grote- The Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto From: Wei Wang, 3054 Price Ct., Palo Alto Voice: 415 - 856 - 0106, E-mail: 75240.631 @compuserve.com Re: Chuck Thompson SwimlTennis Site Date: August 1, 1996 Dear Ms. Grote" This morning, I went out my back door to the field with a ruler and measured the the distance between the existing fence and the existing tennis court (CT-4). The reading is 19 feet, in which the landscape takes about 6 feet. When I pictured the proposed fifth court which will sit right behind my fence with the portable seating looking directly into my bedrooms, then I looked at the three story condos which are built closeby on the other side of the field, I have a feeling that any sensitive people would not feel comfortable to play or attending tennis tournaments where they can see residential homes and condos located so closely. Then I tried to figure out where the proposed sound wall will be. Unless the WinterLodge people tear offthe existing residential fences to install it, otherwise, it will have to be built somewhere in that 19 feet space leaving a space between our fences and the sound wall which will not only seem awkward but also may kill existing trees besides the question of how much sound can be blocked effectively when tennis tournaments are held. I have been practicing Taiji with a group called Taijiquan Tutelage of Palo Alto and found that it is not only a quiet exercise which strengthens this over-the- .hill body of mine in a progressed and fundamental way but also takes my mind away from my busy life and restores it in a calm and peaceful way. Although it has all these benefits but is very difficult to remember and stick to so it will be helpful to use the site for the proposed fifth tennis court for group practicing besides other quiet exercises. HAND DELIVERED July 30, 1996 Ms. Lisa Grote Planning Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Grote: JUL 3 01996 Several years ago, the City Council zoned the property, next tothe Winter Lodge to be residential. When we bought our condos, most or all of us were made aware of the ice skating rink and its attendant noise. The tennis courts were not even mentioned, probably because not many people used them and they didn’t pose much, if any, inconvenience. Over the years, the City granted a use permit to CSI to expand the WinterLodge in spite of protests from the residential neighbors on three sides. Original sound mitigation measures were soon scaled down to practically nil and the neighboring residents lived with it. Now,’ CSI is proposimg not only to refurbish the four existing tennis courts, but to add a fifth court, plus a play area, picnic area, and rest rooms, all a few feet from our homes. City Council strongly recommended in a meeting two years ago that CSI work with the neighbors about their proposed plans. I know of no neighbors that were contacted in this regard.. My question is what is =ompelling the city to grant a permit for all these improvements after designating our property as~ "residential?" Do we not have enough tennis courts, play areas, and picnic facilities in Palo Alto? Perhaps if we knew the justification we could understand what seems like an unnecessary actionthat would disregard surrounding residents’ needs for peace and quiet? Sincerely yours, Dianna Wiegner co: ~P~lo Alto City Council Editor, Palo Alto Weekly Editor, Palo Alto Daily 3069 Middlefield, #101 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 494-7159 July 30, 1996 Ms. Lisa Grote Planning Division city of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Grote: Several years ago, the City Council zoned the property next to the Winter Lodge to be residential. When we bought our condos, most or all of us were made aware of the ice skating rink and its attendant noise. The tennis courts-were not even mentioned, probably because not many people used them and they didn’t pose much, if any, inconvenience. Over the years, the city granted a use permit to CSI to expand - the Winter Lodge in spite of protests from the residential neighbors on three sides, original sound mitigation measures were soon scaled down to practically nil and the neighboring residents lived with it. Now, CSI is proposing not only to refurbish the four existing tennis courts, but to add a fifth courti plus a play area, picnic area, and. rest rooms, all a few feet from our homes. City Council strongly recommended in a meeting two years ago that CSI work with the neighbors about their p~oposed plans. I know of no neighbors that were contacted in this regard. My question is what is compelling the City to grant a permit for all these improvements after designating our property as "residential?" Do we not have enough tennis courts, play areas, and picnic facilities in Palo Alto? Perhaps if we knew the justification we could understand what seems like an unnecessary action that would disregard surrounding residents’ needs for peace and quiet? Sincerely yours, , Dianna Wiegner Palo Alto City Council Editor, Palo Alto Weekly Editor, Palo Alto Daily June 30.1996 RECEIv~r~. .Jlli. -- 5 1996 Depa,-tmcn~ ,.~ ~.~:-.-.=.:-. : : Communit3, Regarding: The Conditional Use Permit for the tennis site at 3009 Middlefield Road Beat City Council Members: During the May 1, !995 public hearing on Community Skating inc.’s proposal for a lease option on the former Chuck Thompson swim!tennis site in Midto~un, the City Council made clear that the use of the site was to be "low intensity and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods" (from the Minutes). fl spokesman of CS! (D. 75-464 of the Minutes) said that "with low intensity came low reuenue"... "It had .to be open air, and open air meant more noise."... "Low intensity in his mind might be sand court voileyba!l, croquet, etc." This seems to me an indication that the proposal for open tennis courts at the site is not considered to be low intensity use even by those proposing it. CSI proposes a sound barrier at the northern boundary and possibly one at the eastern boundary. None is proposed at the western property line, where four tennis courts are located. We have little or no information on hOLE.’, well sound barriers work. There haue been complaints regarding freeway sound wails that, while people directly beside such wails gain re!ief, the noise is projected further away and aduersely affect people at a distance from the wail. Do sound wails reflect sound? Would wails at the northern and eastern ends of the tennis property bounce even more noise toLvards the residents on the western boundary? These are questions which need to be answered before o use. perrnit i~ considered for this project. How toil do the uu: ,,,~ ~unuum..ums are.~u~,a, stories tall - will a 6 foot u_;al! protect residents on the upper stories? II!ould a 12 foo~ wail? ,gt least one condo dweller st the June 20, !996 hearing before the Zoning Administrator expressed strong doubts. There were ,_,,so complaints from several people who live in the. condos regardin~ current noise levels from the Winter Lodge, as well as smoke pollution from people barbecuing on the site when parties are held there. These people have .a lot to contend with currentl~; the additional problems from the proposed use of the tennis site might make their homes unbearable. The same concern is expressed b~j the residents along the western boundary, Ellsworth Place. Would a sound barrier of any height along the creek mitigate the noise for those who live across the creek from the courts, and if So, would that only aggravate the. noise pollution for those on the far side of Ellsworth or further west, or even those on the eastern boundary? Residents who live right along the creek on Ellsworth have backyards which are adjacent to four of the tennis courts and have patiently ;uffered the noise for years; at least it wasn’t constant. The current proposal by CSI has plans for all the courts (including the proposed 5th one near Price ~- ¯ "L,~u~t., being used 7 days a week from 8:00.am until dusk. ~Joes this include holidays?~ Proposed use by CSI includes private matches, group lessons for young children, and tournaments. To make the site more attractive to players and their families, plans include a park with a playground, a picnic site, restrooms near the courts, and storage for portable bleachers. Bleachers mean crowds of cheering people; playgrounds and picnics have their own noises. People noises 2 such os yel=,ing end screoming ore not covered by the C.~I sound study. The sound study °addresses only noise made by th~ racket~ hitting ~ thesoun~ o~ shoes on the court. It does not reflect the reality of iota) no~se from th~ site, wh}ch the n~ghbors would have to en~ure. Wig neighbors are upset and angry about these proposed uses which are not low intensity and Lvere not foreseen by the City Council in May 1995. CSI appears to be in noncompliance with the Council’s requirement for low intensity use and has also’not complied with the requests of seueral of the Council Members that CSI ~ot~ ~ith the neighbors. The people from Price Court, the condominiums, and Ellsworth Place, who spoke at the June 20th hearing, were unanimous in oppos~tion to the proposal for this site. I have spoken with a half dozen people from my street, Ellsworth, and several people from the condos. ~e feel that there is no known mitigation that the neighbors can count on to protect us from the additional noise of the proposed use and, therefore, we are in opposition to granting the conditional use permit to CSI for this site .at 3009 Middlefield. . . Sincerely, cc: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Natalie Fisher 736 Eilsworth Place Pale Alto, CA 9~1306 August I, 1996 Lynn Chiapel!a 631 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 .Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Lisal RE:WINTER LODGE -ZONING 8/i/96 Concerning the noise generation: Are the decibel levels in the report for simultaneous usage of 4 courts or 5 courts? Was there a difference if the courts were used for singles or doubles? Noise protection: The proposal includes sound walls for only 2 sides of the project, the rear wall and the side wall near the condos. The sound wall for the condos is located up to 290 feet from the main source of the noise. Is a 6 foot wall adequate for noise protection? St. Marks and the YMCA both installed higher walls to provide noise protection for the neighbors. This facility will generate much more noise than either of those facilities. Residents on Ellsworth across the creek are about 50 feet from the noise source with the possibility of echo or magnification because of the large concreted channel. These residents will experience the brunt of the noise and need a minimum 8" sound wall to blunt the noise. It doesn’t make sense to put a sound wall on the far side of the area and leave those who live closer with n~o protection. Chuck Thompson had a relatively low intensity tennis facility with few or no weekend tournaments and with a great deal of usage ~y Midtown residents who lived within walking distance, including myself. Since those days the area has changed, with many more residents living in close proximity to the property. The Winter Lodge has also become a much more intensive use in recent years than when it shared the site with Chuck Thompson. I do not believe there is justification for approving the 5th court which will exacerbate an already excessive noise source. Without a 5th court the other noise generating activities of the snack bar and recreation areas can be centered away from the condos and residences to the rear to create a reasonable buffer area. The buffer should be landscaped to create a dense buffer as described by 18.83.100 of the Palo Alto Code which defines standards for projects next to residential zones. Please add a condition to install a minimum 8 foot sound wall, trees and landscaping along Matadero Creek. Without a 5th Court the 4 courts can be realigned further from the creek to reduce the impact of the noise on the residents of Ellsworth. Please add a condition to save the trees along Matadero Creek or to replace them with a 3:1 replacement of trees along the Creek. I am working on the Matadero Creek project to make the creek habitable wildlife between Greet Road and E1Camino. Thank you for your consideration. Lynn Chiapella SWAN,MILLIE / CPA/CH - OpenDesk print. ~essage. Dated: 07/29/96 ,at 1309. .Subject: facility at°3005 Middlefield Rd-upqoming hearing Sender: DAVID-BUKHAN / NTMAIL (*) Contents: 4. Part i. TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2. TO: city COUNCIL / CPA{CI Part 3. MESSAGE HEADER. Part 4. From: David Bukhan <DBukhan@intrmx.com> To: "’city ~-6~n-ci-l~city.palo-alto.ca.us," <city council@city.palo-alto.ca.us> Cc: David ~ukhan <DBukhan@intrmx.com> -- ; This e-mailis for Mayor Lanie Wheeler. Dear Miss Mayor, My name is David Bukhan. I live at 3073 Middlefield Road #204. My phone # are: (415)358-5900 ext.211(work), (415)493-5017 (home). E-mail: dbukhan@intrmx.com. On August ist 1996 (this week Thursday) the Zoning Administrator will conduct a hearing regarding a use permit for the tennis facility operated by the Winter Lodge at 3005 Middlefield Road. This will be a continuation of the hearing held about, a month ago at which the Winter Lodge presented its plan for the use of this parcel. Despite the concerns expressed by you and other City Council members on the May i, 1995 City Council Meeting, when the option to lease was granted to CSI (Community Skating, Inc.), there, is very little consideration for the noise issues affecting the neighbors in the csI.plgns. Thereare two maln issues I would like to focus on in this respect. i. CSI still plans to build the fifthtennis court in addition to the existihg four. This fifth court is in very close.proximity to the c~ndominiums and will be a source of excessive nolse coming into our rooms. Here is what you said on the May ist, 1995 City Council meeting about the fifth court (quote from the city Council minutes): "Vice Mayor Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase 2 .... with respect to the fifth court and its location, she had walked the site and determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase 2 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it". The proposed 6-feet wooden fence between the courts and condominiums may in best case scenari~ protect our garages and cars, but not the living-rooms and bedrooms which are on the second and third floors. Why is the fifth court that necessary? Why can’t the CSI keep a "status quo" - have the existing courts and respect neighbors concerns about the fifth court and drop it from the plan? 2. The most serious concern expressed by the neighbors is not noise from tennis balls, but humannoise. All our references to this factor were dismissed by the Zoning Administrator as not regulated by the city ordinances. Everybody admits there would beexcesslve noise generated by ~ people. But because there is no ordinance this factor is doomed to be ignored? If it is ignored the neighbors will not even have anylegal grounds to complain about the people’s noise. I heard, that some other cities in the Bay Area had ordinances regulating people’s noise. Maybe it is time for Palo Alto to have such ordinance as well. But in the meantime should we just stay away from creating new "trouble spots" where neighbors become victims of the lack of regulations? I would very much appreciate your participation in any way in this matter to preclude creating another trouble spot in this agei of Palo Alto. We are suffering enough from the Winter Lodge and would like to enjoy peace for at least some time during summer. You were the only one among the City Council members who actually visited the site before making decision and I have a great respect for you for doing that. I hope you will help the Zoning Administrator to make a right decision this time. In particular, I think the following issues should be addressed: * exclude the fifth court from the plan * include some conditions in the use permit, which impose noise limits (including all sources of noise) and preclude from installing stands for spectators, having group lessons with more than a certain number of participants, etc. Sincerely, David Bukhan SWAN,MILLIE / CPA/CH - OpenDesk print. Message._^ Dated{ 07/29/96 at 1309..Subject: facility at 300_5. ~e~~Rd-upcomlng hearing Sender: DAVID-BUKHAN /.~~L~ (~’) Contents: 4. Part 1. TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2. TO: city COUNCIL / CPA/CI Part 3. RECEIVED Or /CE MESSAGE HEADER. Part 4. From: David Bukhan <DBukhan@intrmx.com> To: "’city council@city.palo-alto.ca.us’" <city council@city.palo-alto.ca.us> Cc: David ~ukhan <DBukhan@intrmx.com> -- This e-mail is for Mayor Lanie Wheeler. Dear Miss Mayor, My name is David Bukhan. I live at 3073 Middlefield Road #204. My phone # are: (415)358-5900 ext.211(work), (415)493-5017 (home). E-mail: dbukhan@intrmx.com. On August Ist 1996 (this week Thursday) the Zoning Administrator will conduct a hearing regarding a use permit for the tennis facility operated by the Winter Lodge at 3005 Middlefield Road. This will be a continuation of the hearing held about a month ago at which the Winter Lodge presented its plan for the use of this parcel. Despite the concerns expressed by you and other City Council members on the May i, 1995 city Council Meeting, when the option to lease was granted to CSI (Community Skating, Inc.), there is very little consideration for the noise issues affecting the neighbors in the CSI plans. There are two main issues I would like to focus on in this respect. i. CSI still plans to build the fifth tennis court in addition to the. existing four. This fifth court is in very close proximity to the condominiums and will be a source of excessive noise coming into our rooms. Here is what you said on the May ist, 1995 City Council meeting about the fifth court (quote from the City Council minutes): "Vice Mayor Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase 2 .... with respect to the fifth court and its location, she had walked the site and determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase 2 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it". The proposed 6-feet wooden fence between the courts and condominiums may in best case scenario protect our garages and cars, but not the living rooms and bedrooms which are on the second and third floors. Why is the fifth court that necessary? Why can’t the CSI keep a "status quo" - have the existing courts and respect neighbors concerns about the fifth court and drop it from the plan? 2. The most serious concern expressed by the neighbors is not noise from tennis balls, but human noise. All our references to this factor were dismissed by the Zoning Administrator as not regulated by.the City ~rdinances. Everybody admits there would beexcessive nolse generated by people. But because there is no ordinance this factor is doomed to be ignored? If it is ignored the neighbors will not even have any legal grounds to complain about the people’s nolse. I heard, that some other cities in the Bay Area had ordinances regulating people’s noise. Maybe it is time for Palo Alto to have such ordinance as well. But in’the meantime should we just stay away from creating new "trouble spots" where neighbors become victims of the lack of regulations? I would very much appreciate your participation in any way in this matter to preclude creating another trouble spot in this area of Palo Alto. We are suffering enough from the Winter Lodge and would like to enjoy peace for at least some time during summer. You were the only one among the City Council members who actually visited the site before making decision and I have a great respect for you for doing that. I hope you will help the Zoning Administrator to make a right decision this time. In particular, I think the’following issues should be addressed: * exclude the fifth court from the plan * include some conditions in the use permit, which impose noise limits (including all sources of noise) and preclude from installing stands for spectators, having group lessons with more than a certain number of participants, etc. Sincerely, David Bukhan Petition Date:July 28, 1996 To:The Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto Re:Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Site Telmis courts should not be built too close to residential homes especially top quality tenn’is courts that will be heavily used. The proposed fifth courtwill be right outside people’s fences: Even with the proposed six foot sound wall, residents will still be able to hear every hit of the balls during the day; on top of that, the noise from tennis tournaments will be unacceptable. One idea is to refurbish the existing four courts mid landscape the land planned for the fifth court for quiet exercises, such. as Tai Chi (a form of internal martial art), meditation and other exercises that don’t generate excessive loud noise. Name (both print and sign).Street Address Date Comments ¯ tC~o,~,-, ~. ~<-,,,,~/z~z <,,.,,-~l~.7 v..~o I’,,~ i~,,<_<,l ,,,~,<.d Petition Date:July 28, 1996 "re/: From:~t~.~ o-f ~o_L~V,_o.~ 7,4-~J~. o~ ~M.o ~ (~-, 7- To:The Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto Re:Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Site Tennis courts should not be built too close to residential homes especially top quality tennis courts that will be heavily used. The proposed fifth court will be right outside people’.s fences. Even with the proposed six foot soundwall, residents will still be able to hear every hit of the balls during the day; on top of that, the noise from tennis tournalnents will be unacceptable. .. One idea is to refurbish the existing four courts and landscape the land planned for the fifth court for quiet exercises, such as Tai Chi (a form of internal martial art), meditation and other exercises that don’t generate excessive loud noise. Name (both print and sign).Street Address Date / Comments Petition Date:July 28, 1996 w-~/. From:~,d,v,.,, c,{" 7"~.,~.,r_. 7~-,~/.~., of /--3o.go a..~’z, (~a 7- ~ ~ ) To:"fhe 7oning/~drninistrator, City of Palo Alto Re:Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Site Tennis courts should not be built too close to residential homes especially top quality tennis courts that will be heavily used. The proposed fifth court will be right outside pe.ople’s fences. Even with the proposed six foot sound wall, residents.will still be able to hear every hit of the balls during the day; on top of that, the noise from tennis tournaments will be unacceptable. ¯ One idea is to refurbish the existing four courts and landscape the land planned for the fifth court for quiet exercises, such as Tai Chi (a form of internal martial art), meditation and other exercises that don’t generate excessive loud noise. Name (both print and sign)Street Address Date Comments, .~T ~ ,/,4 /-- Petition Date: From: To: Re: July 28, 1996 The Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Site Tennis courts should not be built too close to residential homes especially top quality tennis courts that will be heavily used. The proposed fifth court will be right outside people’s fences. Even with the proposed six foot sound .wall, residents will still be able to hear every hit of the balls during the day; on top of that, the noise from tennis tournaments will be unacceptable. One idea is to refurbish the existing four courts and landscape the land planned for the fifth court for quiet exercises, such as Tai Chi (a form of internal martial art), meditation and other exercises that don’t generate excessive loud noise. Name (both print and sign) .Street Address Date Comments Petition Date:July 28, 1996 --/-./: To:The Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto Re:Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Site Tennis courts should not be built too close to residen, tial homes especially top quality tennis courts that will be heavily used. The proposed fifth court will be right outside people’s fences. Even with the proposed six foot sound wall, residents will still be able to hear every hit of the balls during the day; on top of that, the noise from tennis toumaments will be unacceptable. One idea is to refilrbish the existing four courts and landscape the land planned for the fifth court for quiet exercises, such as Tai Chi (a form of internal martial art), meditation and other, exercises that don’t generate excessive loud noise. Name (both print and sign),.Street Address Date Comments ° 3065-3077 Middlefield Road Homeowners’ Association Palo Alto, CA 94306 July 27, 1996 Ms. Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Ms. Grote: We request the Palo Alto city authorities not to allow use of the former Chuck Thompson swimming pool property for any purpose other than that approved by the City Council on June 13, 1994, namely, tennis.’ We therefore request that the proposal by Community Skating to construct picnic and playground facilities on the property be disapproved. We ask that use of the property for activities associated with the ice rink be prohibited. Because this property is in the middle of a residential area and there is no buffer zone between the tennis courts and our homes, we ask that no activities be permitted which would attract large numbers of spectators and that no permanent or temporary facilities for spectators be allowed. We ask that noise mitigation measures be required on all sides of the tennis courts; that a clear policy of noise restriction be effectively enforced by the Palo ’ Alto Police Department and backed up with effective penalties for repeated violation; and that procedures be put in place to expedite claims by the neighbors for damage resulting from activities on the tennis courts. We ask that use of the property be made conditional on prior fulfillment of all requirements, including construction of a solid wall or fence and planting and maintenance of a "landscaped screen" in the ten-foot space abutting our property (Palo Alto Ordinance 18.32.070(2) and (3)) on both the former Chuck Thompson property and the Winter Lodge ice rink property. For the 3065-3077 Middlefield Road Homeowners’ Association, Sincerely, June 17,1996 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator PIanning DiLJision, City Of Pale Rite P.O. Box 10250 250 Hamilton Auenue PaloAIto, CA 94303 ..Natalie Fisher ?.~6 Elisworth Pla~:e Palo Alto, CA 9‘1306 Dear Ms. Grote: This letter is in regard to the I::ommunity Skating, in(:. appli(:ation for a conditional use. permit for the City-owned tennis facilities located at 3009 Middlefield Road. Since ! wrote you June 13, i haue reuiewed additional reports and files. Below are some specific suggestions for conditions as well as general comments. .Since this property was obtained in exchange for public land, it seems inappropriate to me that it be conLJerted to priuate use. The intends to restrict use of the tennis courts to fee paying key holders or those paying for tennis lessons. In e~change, I~.SI is to pay the Citg of Pale Alto a one time rent of only $100.for the 15 year lease. How does this arrangement benefit Palo Altans at large? I belieue that a condition of the use permit should be that the lights in the courts be completely remo~ed, including cables and ~uires, .so that they cannot be turned on at night. There haue been instances Luhen lights we~e turned on euen thought theg are not supposed to be. As long as the. equipment is there, there Luill be people mho find a tuay to turn the lights on and plag on late into the night or. early morning. This has happened. Since ! liue immediately behind the courts on the other side of the (:reek, on Eils~orth place, ! (:an see the lights.and hear the players from my bedroom. Another condition of the, use Permit should be some kind, of noise mitigation for ALL the neighbors of the courts, not only those on tmo sides. The courts are practically in our backyards on E!isLuorth. LLie are much closer to them than are the residents ef the condominiums.. And ,I of the 5 proposed courts are lined up, one after the other, right behind out ba~:k fences, lhe creek offers n_~o mitigation of the noise. II!e need a sound wall like that recommended by the acoustical consultant for the "north" boundary. LfL~e are as impacted b.LJ the tennis courts as people living on Price C.o~rt, perhaps even more as there are 4 courts near us. The CSI "Program Description Summer Schedole" lists key entry playing beginning at 8 am and group lessons starting at 10 am. Fit present, there is a city sign on the two tennis courts clos~.st to my house which requests piage.~s to use other courts untii9 am out of consideration to residents. This has helped quite abit, although not all players accede to this suggestion, laskthat a condition of the use permit be that no playing begin beforegam. It would be a big step backwards for us to again have playing as early as 8 am on a daily basis. The I_:SI Schedule also implie.s that al~I the courts will be in use all day eL:ery day until dark. This is a fat different situation than the current one, where a few people play at different courts at different, times. Ful! use of the courts, including group lessons for young people, are bound to raise the noise levels considerably, both the noise of the balls. being hit and the verbal volume, such as shouting and whooping, etc. The sound consultants cannot estimate accurately the decibel levels until after the ne~ uses are in place. Further, the sound Lvall recommended along the northern boundary might actually reflect noise elsewhere, towards EIIsworth Place andlor towards the condos. Additions of seating for tournaments and special events, patio, snack bar, barbecue pit, etc., seem totally inappropriate for this small space. Such large scale activities should not be permitted at this location, surrounded on three sides by residences. Adding these activities at the tennis courts to .those special events ofthe Winter Lodge would create a year around situation in which there are high noise levels and inadequate parking. (Adding 29 or 39 more parking spaces will not adequately address this problem.) Surely, such special events as tournaments could be heid at tennis courts located in a park such as Mitchell or Greet, where lights could also be included without impacting residents, fl understand there was a master plan for Greer Park which was to include tennis courts.) Lastly, the plans for a park and eating areas, for benches, etc. all sound like enticements to the customers to hang out in this outdoor area ~-,~hen not playing tennis. LL!e have numerous parks for picnics. CSI seems to be extending use of this site far beyond that approved by the City Council during the 1995 public hearing. Please check the minutes of the public hearings 1993 to 1995 before making your decision. I Lvould like to bring to your attention also that the City Council and Staff, during a public hearing on April 26, 1993, on pages 70-352-353 of the Flinutes, enlphasized their desire to have the neighbors included and involved in the development of theRFP and "the evaluation of the proposals before Council made a decision." FI motion ~.~as passed to "incorporate into the main motion to include a p:ocess for neighborhood participation in the evaluation and the RFP process." The motion passed. To my know, ledge, the neighbors u.~ere never inL, ited to participate in this LL.’.a.y.. ! knOLL~ this for a fact regarding the residents on EIisLvorth Place and suspect it is true for the other neighbors, as ~ell. Aside from speaking at public hearings before the City Council, we haL~e not been invited to participate; our opinions and evaluations have not been sought; and we have not been updated about CSi’s ongoing or current plans for this site. The application file at the Planning Office has nothing in it regarding the actual use of the site: hours of play, who, what, when. I only found plans and comments regarding the physical aspects, lllill there be a public hearing before the Council on the actual uses and hours of use? I ~..dsh to rec.eiue a copy of your decision on the use permit and also wish to be informed of any future meetings regarding this property. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Natalie Fisher 3 June 13,1996 736 Fllsworth Place Pale Alto, CA 94306 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator Planning Division, City Of Pale Alto P.O. Box 10250 250 Hamilton ALJenue Pale Alto, CA 9,1303 [~ear Ms. Grote: This letter is in regard to the application for a conditional use permit for the City-owned tennis facilities located at 3009 Middlefield Road. I have reviewed the file for the upcoming hearing on June 20, and have some comments to offer on the application. First, many current players might be upset to learn that these public courts will now become private, with membership fees required to use them. Unfortunately, there has been no mention of this in the local news media since the public hearing before the Council on June 1994. People may understandably have forgotten the details disclosed at that hearing after two years. Secondly, the noise problems continue to be a concern to those who live On Ellsworth Place, just across the creek from the tennis courts. I have lived in this house since 1976, have owned it since 1980, and have spoken to Janet Freeland by phone several times over the years regarding problems with these tennis courts. They are situated across the creek directly behind my bedroom. In 1989 residents on this street sent the City Council a petition regarding the expansion ef the skating rink, asking that our concerns about noise at this site be kept in mind. This petition, I was told, was read at the City Council meeting. At that time, the proposal of the Community Skating, Inc. stated that the organization had been in contact with neighbors of the skating rink and had some type of dialogue going on with the neighbors. Only the nearby condominium was specifically mentioned, however. The fact is that this organization has never approached the residents of Ellsworth Place and we continue to be excluded regarding plans for this site. This lack e.f attention continues with the current application regarding the tennis courts, in this instance, it is we who are directl.g adjacent to the site t.the tennis c..ourts.1 rather than the residents of the condominium, The application file for the tennis courts contains a recommendation for a sound barrier along Price Court but nothing along Matadero Creek to mitigate the noise for residents o~ Eiis~orth Place (]Jtec~,y across the creek. m .._:lll~. on E!ls~mth Place have long had a noise probiem Luith the current tennis courts. The addition of another tennis court at the tocation shown in Figure 1 of the file might not affect us. But the addition of a snack bat and rest rooms ~,ouid most likely result in people hanging around the tennis courts even when not actually playing. The noise laurels might increase significantly in the area. In addition, to the noise of the tennis bails being hit, which sound to us like firecrackers going off outside our bedroom window, some players shout to each other- while playing and contribute quite a bit of vocal noise which has not been measured. We also sometimes have a problem with noise at the parking lot, kids yelling and screaming at. each other. We think a snack bar aad rest roams at the tennis courts tVauld aggravate the ~ocal noise and we ask that they not be approved.And we request a sound harrier along the creek in any case. In the past I have phoned .regarding night p]aying at the tennis courts. When lights were available, people sometimes played in the courts until midnight or beyond and then others started at 6 or 7 am :the next morning. Someone was able to turn the lights back on after the timer turned them off! At the last public hearings the public was promised that lights would be prohibited at these courts if the plans to refurbish them went through, i assume this promise is being remembered and kept. Another condition we would like is that reasonable time limits be imposed, say from IOam until dark, and that some authorized person be available by phone at any time, morning and nigh-~, should a problem develop, such as people playing during unauthorized hours, in the absence of a number to phone, there remains only the police to r;all upon for help. In summary, El!swarth Place is part of the residentia! area surrounding the ~ennis courts and should certainly be included for- consideration ~uhen conditions are set on this application. Sincerely yours, ’ 2 Joe Colonna Planning Division City of Pale Alto P.O. Box 10250 Pale AJto, CA 94303 ,Natalie Fisher 736 Ellsworth Place Pale Alto, CA 94306 ,June 17, ! 996 This is in reference to the Zoning Administrator’s decision regarding the conditional use permit for the +~n~,~,,,,,.~ ........ L.~,u, +--,~ at ~nnn~,,,~ ,-,,u~,~.,,~,u~’~"~ Road. This is a request to be mailed a cop.y of the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding this issue. I understand that this will be mailed within I0 working days of the June 20th hearing. Thank you. Natalie Fisher June 20, 1996 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator Planning Division. City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Cal~n’-’~_~ a 94303 Dear Ms. Grote: This letter is in regard to the Community Skating Inc application for a conditional use permit.at 3009 Middlefield Road for a Tennis Center. Edward L. Pack Associates Inc has prepared for Winter Lodge an Acoustical Analysis of the planned Tennis Court Remodeling Project. The copy I have is dated.April 8, 1996, stamped "received April 12, 1996 Department of Planning and Community Environment." TI~is report is important to.~me.because I live adjacent to the Matedero Creek (West Property Line) on Ellsworth Place and it’s acceptance may determine wliat is actually .done pt the tennis courts. I see some problems with the report. On page 4 there is a misstaternent at the fourth dot down: The statement should read "The average noise level at the west property line (west of Matadero Creek) under the proposed tennis cv.~,-~’~t scenario will be 51 dBA. The Noise level will be 5 dBA bel-ow the Noise Ordinance limit." As.actually written ~he proposed construction scenario would lessen tI~e average noise level at our boundary~,~ reorienting two codrts in place and adding a new fiftI~~=~,~. The subsequent table entitled "Tennis Playing .Noise Levels Winterlodge of Pal~ Alto" is the ~-ma..,es thissource of the verbal summaries on pages .’:. and 4 and k - misstaternent very clear. ~.~.~ ~ ,~ ._~~n.~.t .I~ Report wisI~es tn say, I believe, ~" re~ard to the current and proposed noise levels can be accurately rephrased (* next to the ~_"" .....~OWS:rnrrected ,m~.~t,~..,nent) as fo!l I Total " ~.""!]’~ ,~ I~.,,,~.I at Winter Lodge~? o., ,J~ Noise _~: ~.s Old dBA levels New dBA levels North Property Line 54 57 51" Total I’laximum Noise Levels at Winter Lodge North Property Line 64 64 West Property Line 56 Palo Alto Ordinance Level here is 56 dBA 56 Again,. except for the * entry, these values can be read directly from the verbal summaries on pages 3 & 4 or, without any corrections from ....~.;~ table "T..nm.:,~.’ " .-. PlauinQ Noise L~.;.~."~._.l._-.’- WinI~.riod~e of Palo Alto" between pages 4 and 5. My complaint is that even with the correction, the report understates the inlpact on residents near Materdero Creek. If the proposed wall is built, for example, to mitigate the increased noise to the North, the reflected noise from this wall in itself may push both our (West property line) average and rnaximurn noise levels up a few decibels, near the current North line levels, or in the case of the maximum noise levels, will exceed the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance of 56 dBA. In effect, we will be in nearly the same fix the North Boundary residents are in, only without any mitigation whatsoever. With their wail, their dBA values will decrease, probably below the 56 dBA ordinance level, while we will have maximum values over 56 dBA and possibly average noise values over 56 dBA as well. Worse, even under the most optirnistic conditions, the increased number of hours of play expected will increase the stress we will face over current levels¯ This is particularly true for tournaments, spectator events, or large class instructions w~th tl]eir attendantnoise ~ " ’-¯,_,dd~t~u o. As the report clearly ..... ~ ......~.- ball being hit is 58dBA atstates the ...."noise :o,,~.1. of u,,~ ,~.,,,,,o, na.,~l munl .... ,,, ~ ..... 40 feet, and for tenniS shoes squ.eaking on the court surface 52dBA at the same distance, the former exceeding the 56 dBA level of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Such maximum events will surely be increased greatly with the proposed scenario. We can ~.’,p’~cl ....a lot rnnr~._ _ heavy I~itler..--~.. ~ than before. the,fact that fnr wha~.-, aopea;-s to increase with ÷i--.,..~ lateness of the ,~--’~ If you look ,~t the L90 t.n r’,nnn I to 6 "" ,.u ,, find the corre:--;ponding averaqe=--~ to be 44 "~-’ o~ and 45.8 dBA respecti’ .-~- " " ,lu;u~ 3rd, rain l:_.~,m;lh,:l about n,_,u,, and, due to upon a single s,~mp!ing day, ,,.YMct] may or may not be representative. We need t~ot,,:g on annth~.r day at least, and real world acoustic ,,u.:.~,.,uuu,~o at the north and west prooert!_l lines not ~,.-t computed sirnulations as listed in the report between pug_.° 4 and 5. I arn 9, u,~.tul that t~ r~.pnrt finail!_l ~--’ .... o the problerns of noise from tennis c,-_,urts,.and appreciate that it has heretofore been difficult to tuft.-.. uu~_.,.,t the r~roblerns, with any degree nf_ ~.:.~..,_. uu!.l.. Alfhnuqh.. not m, ..’=;, of the nrd~.r of o~,:~, .1 dB for ,.,.-~. theoretical, ! must point out that no ,_,,,o canHavin!q discussed * ......... upp, ~,~,ate the problem until yuu have I~een awakened at 7 or o a.m. u,,,.~.h~,,.,, or ;,,,._J. own favorite "What are we doina uut --’ ..... few of *~’o.’~,,,o.:..~ and one is up fnr_. ÷~:..~ day. The current level of play is ,.,_,lerahl~. rnost nf the. rest of the dau but it is ,n,~onc~,,uule me we do not face greatly increased noise ,_,-.’-~ rnost days frorn *~"-’,.,,,. tennis ,.uu, to. The rep.,-,d. . far understates in rny ,-oini,-,n_. . , the impact on ,.n~ West Line residents. ¯. uundlttu,~u~ly a wall similar to’,,~,,’hat I propose ~ [he wail proposed for the north property line but a!ong Matedero Creek, or, if 1~’~..,o is unacc~.oI’able;_. . . 2) require that testing, be cornol~.led. _. at the u, ,.at construction is completed and the t._.n.,~,o plan in nolo. limi exceed the Palo Alto ,.,,_.,._ ~ ,m| ..o ,,. the hnundar~, then either a new wall be built, or else the enure use perrnit be --r,. ..... .....,~erns. If none nf tMs will "",_,._. accepted by "ei then ,.nu,. Y.,.’ou!d seem scale. What happens is that at Winter Lodge special events, lights by the courts are turned on for use of the porta-potties behind the Ice Rink. There is probably no intention to encourage people to use the courts, but in two or thre.e., instances in the last year, there have been tennis players playing under the lights at 9 or 10 p.m, hockey players on the same courts, all on an ad hoc basis, i request that the condition of the lights being disconnected be written into the use permit. What one day is a temporary exception quickly becomes a general’ rule, almost impossible to reverse. The lack of communication ensures that we have no one to turn to in case of violations. The decision you make may set in motion a plan that will greatly lessen our quality of life. Together with health problems (miqraine headaches in my ~-’---~_. ~,~._-.~., and the fact that we actually live in our house during the day, I ask that you keep us in mind as you make your decision. Given our past experiences, unless there are mitigating conditions, I don’t see any basis for trusting Winter Lodge or CSI particularly after they receive an O.K. to build restrooms and snack patio as well as new courts. Since.rely, ~, K. Abraham 36 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California 94306 4 My name is David Bukhan. I live at 3073 Middlefield Road #204. ¯My phone # are: (415)358-5900 ext.211(work), (415)493-5017 (home). E.-mail: dbukhan@intrmx.com. On August 1st 1996 (this week Thursday) the Zoning Administrator will conduct a hearing regarding a use permit for the tennis facility operated by the Winter Lodge at 3005 Middlefield Road. This will be a continuatioh of the hearing held about a month ago at which the Winter Lodge presented its plan for the use of this parcel. Despite the concerns expressed by you and other City Council members on the May i, 1995 City Council Meeting, when the option to lease was granted to CSI (Community Skating, Inc.), there is very little consideration for the noise issues affecting the neighbors in the CSI plans. There are two main issues I would like to focus on in this respect. I. CSI still plans to build the fifth tennis court in addition to the existing four. This fifth court is in very close proximity to. the condominiums and.will be a source of excessive noise coming into our rooms. Here is what you said on the May Ist, 1995 City Council meeting about the fifth court (quote from the City Council minutes): "Vice Mayor Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase 2 .... with respect to the fifth court and its location, she had walked the site and determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase 2 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it" The proposed 6-feet wooden fence between the courts and condominiums may in best case scenario protect our garages and cars, but not the living rooms and bedrooms which are on the second and third floors. Why is the fifth court that necessary? Why can’t the CSI keep a "status quo" - have the existing courts and respect neighbors concerns about the fifth court and drop it from the plan? 2. The most serious concern expressed by the neighbors is not noise from tennis balls, but human noise. All our references to this factor were dismissed by the Zoning Administrator as not regulated by the City ordinances. Everybody admits there would be excessive noise generated by people. But because there is no ordinance this factor is doomed to be ignored? If it is ignored the neighbors will not even have any legal grounds to complain about the people’s noise.- I heard, that some other cities in the Bay Area had ordinances regulating people’s noise. Maybe .. it is time for Palo Alto to have such ordinance as well. But in the meantime should we just stay away from creating new "trouble spots" where neighbors become victims of the lack of regulations? I would very much appreciate your participation in any way in this matter to preclude creating another trouble spot in this area of Palo Alto. We are suffering enough from the Winter Lodge and would like to enjoy peace for at least some time during summer. You were the only one among the City Council members who actually visited the site before making decision and I have a great respect.for you for doing that. I hope~you will help the Zoning Administrator to make a right decision this time. In particular, I think the following issues should be addressed: * exclude the fifth court from the plan * include some conditions in the use permit, which impose noise limits (including all sources of noise) and preclude from installing stands for spectators, having group lessons with more than a certain number of participants, etc. Sincerely, David Bukhan GROTE,LISA / CPA/CH - OpenDesk print. Message. Dated: 08/05/96 at 1919. Subject: facility at 3005 Middlefield Rd-upcoming hearing Sender: Ken SCHREIBER / CPA/CH Contents: 2. TO: Lisa GROTE / CPA/CH Part 1. FROM: Ken SCHREIBER / CPA/CH TO: Lisa GROTE / CPA/CH Nancy LYTLE / CPA/CH Part 2. Package. Dated: 08/05/96 at 1919., Subject: facility at 3005 Middlefield Rd-upcoming hearing Creator: Ken SCHREIBER / CPA/CH Contents: 6. Part 2.1. TO: Ken SCHREIBER / CPA/CH Part 2.2. Did you or your staff get a copy of this. Part 2.3. TO: Ron ANDERSEN / CPA/CI ,Gary FAZZINO / CPA/CI June FLEMING / CPA/CH Liz KNISS / CPA/CI Jean MCCOWN / CPA/CI Dick ROSENBAUM / CPAiCH Micki SCHNEIDER / CPA/CH Joe SIMITIAN / CPA/CI Lanie WHEELER / CPA/CH GIoriaYOUNG / CPA/CH Part 2.4. TO: Ci,ty COUNCIL / CPA/CI, Part 2.5. MESSAGE HEADER. Part 2.6. From: David Bukhan <DBukhan@intrmx.com> To: "’city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us’" <city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us> Cc: David Bukhan <DBukhan@intrmx.com> This e-mail is for Mayor Lanie Wheeler. Dear Miss Mayor, __h " "- : MIDTOWN °-Winter..Lodge... asks :,to winter Lodge Seeks tennis lease ¯ ..:.....;.:;- ac~ si~ from ~e ci~, ~fu~ish . fgur de.pit ~ ~d bu~d One new one, ~d ~ll ~ys w u~ Residen~ who live ~ong ~o~ ~ w~t p~ ~ hav~ Co~u~ S~g w~ have s~ a ~lid ~f~t w~ ~g b~ ~ ~u~g m~ s~ ~ zo~ng ~~r ~ ~1~ ~g a being ~day, June 20, ~d w~ d~de whe~er m ~t a ing s~ at 3 p.m. ~ ~eConfe~nc~ R~m, ~0 H~ilm¢ " Ave. ~e Ci~ Coun~ gaw Co~muni~ S~g ~ option ¯e ~m exac~y a ye~ ago. (continued on ne~ ~age} llm former Chuck Thompson Swim -~add.-Tennis Club. The city d~mol- ishe~l tlm pool two months ago. The swimming pool area would be land- scaped witli a path and benches in back ya~ as’far as noise .is con- . c~med. We hem’. the ’pOl~ pop, pop’ said Natalie Fisher, who rliy.eS, on .. - Ellswor, h -Place." -is ?~-acros~ .-. . -..- ..-,.:..,:.:~ "It’slike the.eou~ts ari : ’in our back yard as far " as noise is conc_.er~.-e..d.. ¯ W.e hear the "pop, pop, ipop" like firecrackers.. We hear yelh’ng." --Matadem, Creek from.the-, amnis " " " " " .-¯¢oin~.:_~’~:eagaintbey’mignoring, At past h~ings, resHcnts Imve .bur sd~et, F’~sher said:..__’~, ~" ,~¢k spoken against ~e public courts be-"doe~.n~tmitigat~ the sound. - - ".." c0mingprivat~ and the incensed Will 0nly be open during dayl.ight --°. ,The zoning administrator .frill " houis for lessons and matches.. In the next fiv~ years Community Skating "also-- plans- .to. buildre- stmb~.,and-a patio,w.hem l~ople :an eat food brpu.ght.. [tom else: fednesday, June 19, 1996 * Page 15 take comments until June 20. The itevelopm~nt plans .will also bg. con- -sidered by. the Planning Commis- sion and City Council at an un_- ~chednled da~, Fnmland said. ¯.--Headier Rack Woods Winmr Lodge ice.skating rink on" ": the public for free, but they a~ in "Middlefield Road am planning to poor sha~becanse thedty d~s not operate the adjacent, city,owned .maintain them, s~id ~nlor plan~r." I~ Colonna. "rl~.eoUr~ are ~ oftennis courts. ¯ - .. June 18, 1996 Lynn Chiapella 631 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94306 RECE~[VED Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator 250 Hamilton Avenue City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 JUN 1 8 1996 ~;°mmum,’Y £n,~ironment RE: 3009 Middlefield Road, proposal for a tennis facility Dear Lisa; This proposal needs strong mitigation since it will be very intrusive to adjacent neighbors on three sides of the project. So far the plan shows all the benefits for the’ I00 private card holders of the tennis club with little to no mitigation for the residents. In fact the removal of the vegetation and addition of significantly more hardscape will make the area more noisy and more intrusive than it already’is, as well as creating a heat island effect. The following mitigation is needed: Sound barriers of sufficient height to reduce the noise from early morning tenni~ players, who may play as early as 6 am during summer. I believe that the tennis courts should have mandatory hours of play that would prevent intrusive noise during the early morning hours. 2:1 replacement of trees removed from the site as per PAMC 18.83.100 with landscape buffers in the setback areas adjacent to residehtial areas and Matadero Creek. The~.most impact from noise will be felt by the residents on Ellsworth and the residents next to the northeast corner of the site. .A sound wall ’with a landscape buffer is needed to provide respite from the hardscape and reduce’ the "heat island" effect of the asphalt and cement. no variances in side and rear setbacks which would allow placement of noise generating facilities closer to residences. a reevaluation of the parking based on additional construction of 880 sq. ft. and 5 tennis courts. Some of this square footage adds to the parking requirements for the property. In January of 1996 the Winter Lodge proposed 98 total parking spaces. In February of 1996 the Winter Lodge proposes removing 9 already existing spaces and reducing the parking to 89 total spaces. Does the 89 spaces include the parking along the ARCO gas station which is used by ARCO in exchange for the maintenance of the landscape buffer? Page 2 of 3 Als0, it is not clear how the "snack patio" is intended to be used. Is it to be ~sed for social events for the Palo Alto Tennis Club, including family and friends? How large are these events and how many do they hold? Does this facility have outside lights so that it will be available for night use? a reevaluation of the drainage from the Winter Lodge site onto Stern Avenue. The current proposal has 80~ impervious coverage which will significantly increase run-off from the site. How will the over 40 year old drainage system through a "private storm drain" handle this additional run-off? This "private storm drain" drains toward the back of the site toward Stern Avenue instead of Middlefield Road. I did not find any records showing the size and capacity of the "private storm drain". I did not find calculations to indicate the additional run-off, especially during a 10-year storm. There is always standing wa%er ~ on the property during heavy rain storms, such as those of.the last two years, and large amounts of water continue to drain onto Stern Avenue, along Ross Road and down into Allen Court. the maintenance of the landscaping and parking area between ARCO gas station and the creek, needs to be clarified. It is my understanding the City has granted at least 3 spaces to the ARCO station in return for landscape maintenance of the corner triangle adjacent to the sidewalk on Middlefield Road. the landscape and parking ~phase of the project must be constructed in coordination with the building project So that the area does not continue to be a neglected wasteland. It took the Winterlodge 6-7 years to build the required parking lot and put in the required landscape. In the process many trees died and the,entire parking area and parkstrip on Middlefield was left. a dustbowl of dirt and weeds. It is clear that input given at City Council by the neighbors of the Winter Lodge was ignored in.the plan submitted.in January of 1996. At that council meeting it was requested that the Winter Lodge and neighbors work together to find a workable solution. Have the adjacent neighbors been included in the process and seen the current proposal? I request that I be notified of the Architectural Review Board hearings, City Council,and Planning Commission meetings in regards to this property. Please inform me which City department or division has the documents relating to the "private storm drain"? Attachment: List of unanswered questions regarding proposal Page 3 of 3 QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL FOR 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD I. How are the noise issues for adjacent addressed in the proposal? residents to be 2. What is the allowed usage of the snack bar and picnic area in terms of large groups, whether for the Palo Alto Tennis Club or for other groups? 3. How will the increased parking . ngeds be met when this new facility with 5 tennis courts, snack bar, and picnic area. is constructed? 4. What is the City agreement with the ~ARCO station in regards to parking in the area between the ARCO station and Matadero Creek? 5. What is the capacity of the storm drainage system at both ends, including the capacity of the City owned storm drain located at the end of the "private" storm drain? 6. What conditions ensure that the Winterlodge maintain existing landscape until the irrigation and landscaping completed during the proposed phase 3? the are 7.What is the.time table for construction of each area? 8. Is the landscaping and needed, parking constructed with each area to mitigate the noise, parking, and "heat island" problems? 9. If the City of Palo Alto grants development entitlement to the Winter Lodge which demonstrably and negatively affect adjoining properties, what enforceable protection and mitigation does the City provide to the affected residential neighbors? e i0 , 1996 n Chiapella Colorado Avenue o Alto, CA 94306 Colonna artment of Planning and Community Design Hamilton Avenue o Alto, CA 94306 JUN 1 1 1996 Oepadmen: o; ~;~.-nn;zgCommunity Envimnmen]. 3010 Middlefield Road Joe : old Chuck Thompson site contains more trees than are shown arborist report .that has been.submitted by the developers of property. The tree or t~ees adjacent to the ARCO station Middlefield Road are not shown. I am told by Janet elander of the Real Estate Department that this landscape area be cared for by the ARCO station in return for 3 parking ~ces . addition there are many juniper or cypress trees at the rear the property which were planted to form a dense visual screen noise buffer between the adjacent residential and Chuck ,mpson recreation area. There may be as many as 30 or 40 of ¯ se trees. .re is a Palm tree adjacent to the creek area and some busy .nts that provide habitat and nesting area for the mallards and ~er birds that live in the.creek area, such as herons and ets. I would hope that this area would be enhanced, as per ¯ recommendations of CPAC, rather than cleared and filled with ,ent or asphalt. There is already an environmental steward ~aging an environmental project between Greet Road and Ross td. The tennis courts and parking area already create a heat .and effect. To remove more trees and vegetation and add more "dscape will exacerbate the problems of the creek, particularly ~ce this area contains fish and other animals identified in the ~ta Clara Valley Water District document on Matadero Creek. ~re are two trees behind AECO on the City property that need to evaluated one is a redwood and the second of unknown species staked. a count of all the trees including the cypress (or juniper) is :luded, there would be well over 50 trees on the site. ~ase include this letter referring to the additional trees in e ARB file on the property and for the ARB meeting on the ndscape, whenever it is scheduled. Please put me on the llinq list to be notified of the ARB meetinq to discuss the ~dscape plan for the proposed tennis courts. ncerely, nn ChiaDella Some Objections to the Winte.rl.odge Acoustical Report Dated April 1996, Project No. 28-016, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. by John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California Summary Some of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.’s Acoustical Analysis corroborates what neighbors have been saying for years. These noise violations have been occurring on a regular basis without redress up to the present, and I am happy that they are finally getting a numerical character in Mr. Pack’s report. He does point out on page I, 3rd sentence, "The. results of the analysis indicate the tennis playing noise levels were in violation of the Noise Ordinance standards in the past during serving of the ball. The planned project maximum single-event noise levels will be the same as the previous levels. The average noise levels will be 3 dB higher than before, but will remain within the limits of the Noise Ordinance." Under Mr. Pack’s assumptions, the peak noise levels delivered to the Northern neighbors, for example~ during one game.of tennis at court No. 4, (NW corner of the property), results in ball and shoes hits exceeding the City of Palo Alto Noise limits; and are just slightly under for average noise. At courts 2,3 and 4 along Matadero Creek, ball hit noise delivered to the Western neighbors slightly exceeds the city noise limit..Noise levels delivered to the EaStern neighbors from proposed court No. 5 would be under the city limits under~ Mr. Pack’s assumptions, but these assumptions ignore voice noise for tournaments or special .events with crowds on bleachers. A sound wall for’ theNorthern neighbors might paradoxically leave them less harmed, despite being the most impacted. The Eastern neighbors would receive at their upper levels’ all the additional sounds of the courts as well as the current noise from the Ice Rink. And the We.st neighbors would receive no help at all with greatly increased amounts of daily noise violations. Talk of a statistical "average" noise belies the fact that an average sound level is not what the tennis courts deliver. The real sounds are ball hits, squeaks and voice noise. The hypothesized average noise for Palo Alto, incidentally, happens to be less than the average of Mr. Pack’s own ambient noise measurements for the proposed hours of tennis court operation in Palo Alto, one of the problems in using his imported Brookside data. There is no evidence presented that a sound wall can be built to protect the upper floors on the Eastern boundary. The existing wooden wall there does not meet Mr. Pack’s standards for airtightness. The Western neighbors, totally unprotected, will have noise damage done by much greater levels of tennis activity plus a Northern sound wall that can be expected to add further decibels by reflection. To get some idea of dB voice levels accompanying tennis court usage I have estimated [Cf.’reference (4) and my discussion on page 8] a range of voice noise between 60 and 70 dB at 40 feet, the distance Mr. Pack uses for his Brookside data to construct the Table "TENNIS PLAYING NOISE I LEVELS..." The insertion of my voice noise data into this Table, calculating in the same way as Mr. Pack has done for BALL and SHOE noise, results in estimated total noise levels ranging from 66 to 76 dBA for Northern neighbors for courts 4 and 5. The additional v.oice noise for the Western neighbors from courts 2, 3 and 4 will .range from 58 to 68 dB.. At 100 feet from court 5, the Eastern boundary vocal noise.will be between 52 to 62 dBA. With bleachers, additional crowd noise and Public address system use, (as at the Ice Rink), these residences will receive, especially on the upper floors, noise levels exceeding the Palo Alto noise limits. The response of Winterlodge to the complaints fro.m Eastern neighbors has been, over. the years, discouraging, in my opinion. Neighbors to. the North, who have suffered for years noise damage over the city limits, possibly~may get some relief from future increases. The Western neighbors, who have never had any protection offered, will now get greatly increased noise from the three courts 50 feetfrom their property lines. The ambient noise level data in Appendix C, was almost surely collected while at least some tennis was being played on March 2nd and 3rd, violating the basic assumptions. Rather than incur additional expense for a new ambient study I recommend that Edward L. Pack Associates Inc be asked to determine whether the Eastern and Western neighbors can be protected. If the answer to this basic question is noo then because of the projected greatly increased number of daily noise violations of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, I respectfully ask that the conditional use permit be denied. Proposed List of Errors--Winterlodge Report of April 8o 1996 page 2, middle of. first paragraph: Should read "L90, i.e., the sound level exceed 90% (54 minutes out of 60)" page 4, fourth dot: Should read "under the proposed tennis, court scenario will be 51 dBA. This noise level will be 5 dB below the.Noise Ordinance limit." Table titled "TENNIS PLAYING NOISE LEVELS WINTERLODGE OF PALO ALTO": [I] The table subcomponents labeled "North House Setback" Old and New, "West House Setback" Old and New--all have the words "SHOE" and "BALL" interchanged. The headings should be in the same order as in the remainder of the table. [2] The numerical value in "West House Setback", Old, under TOTAL, column titled SHOE (which by the correction above should be labeled "BALL") should be 52.00 and not 51.00. Mr. Pack intends to list the maximum values in.the column above. The same mistake occurs in "West House Setback", New, under TOTAL,-column titled SHOE (which by the correction above should be labeled "BALL") should be 52.00 and not 51.00. Figure I: The numbering of the courts referred to in the report has been omitted. From the table "TENNIS PLAYING...." it is clear that they should be numbered in a clockwise direction starting with the court nearest the proposed keyed gate. Court No. 5 will be the new court next to the north property line. First Table in Appendix C- Title should read "....Date 3/I-3/1996..." Table entitled "ORDINANCE WORKSHEET" [I] For some reason Mr. Pack has chosen to add only 6 dB to L90 instead of 15 dB under the ordinance. All entries in the column "Noise Limit" are too low by. 9 dBA. [2] The dates listed in the heading should read 3/2-311996. 3 Some Objections to the Winterlodge Acoustical Report Dated April 8, 1996, Project No. 28-016, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. by John K. Abraham This sound analysis provided by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. was prepared for Winterlodge as client for use in the process of obtaining a permit for their proposed expansion. My basic objections to the report are that Mr. Pack is a bit biased and on occasion a bit careless. I hope there is no misunderstanding about whether Mr. Pack is biased or not. A rather timid attempt on my part to find a copy of reference (c), for example, concerning his Brookside report of September 7, 1989 was completely rejected in a conversation with him June 21st. He considers the Brookside report to be the private property of his client, with no public obligations whatsoever.’ I have since found it available in the packet associated with hearings before the Saratoga City Council in July, 1990. I have enclosed a copy for reference. Both Mr. Pack and Ms. Linda Jensen, Director of CSI, have said in response to my queries about the sound report "Go talk to the City," which is exactly what I’m doing. Unfortunately most of the main statements, including all of Table 4.5 (my label for "TENNIS PLAYING NOISE LEVELS WINTERLODGE OF PALO ALTO" appearing between his pages 4 and 5) and its inferences° are based on his Brookside data. As a neighbor on the Western side of the proposed tennis project in Palo Alto I object to Mr. Pack’s inferences and some of the basic data provided in his reports. There are three areas of interest in Mr. Pack’s report to residents near the proposed Tennis Courts at 3009 Middlefield Road: I) Acoustical measurements meant to establish the appropriate legal noise limits at the tennis courts. 2) Insertion of the Brookside data to estimate the maximum and average noise levels under the previous and proposed tennis court scenarios at Middlefield. 3) Recommendation to reduce the maximum noise level from the service of balls to acceptable levels by construction of a 6 ft. high acoustically-effective barrier along the entire north property line. I Acoustical studies meant to establish the appropriate legal noise limits at the proposed tennis courts The data in Mr. Pack’s Appendices B & C refers to on site Noise Measurement Data extending from March I to March 3, 1996 at Winterlodge in Palo Alto. The purpose of the data in Appendix C is to establish the appropriate minimum ambient level L90 during the proposed hours of operation, namely 7 a.m to 9 p.m. (There is uncertainty whether dawn 4 hours are to be allowed or there are fixe~:~hours.) As noted on his page B-Io the Palo Alto noise ordinance requires the local ambient to be mea~ure~J .t.~ the noise issue silent. In an attempt to do this Edward L. Pack Associates began their meter(s) at 18:42:56 on March I, Friday, and they apparently ran continuously until sometime after 11:42:57 on March 3, 1996 at which time further readings were "rained out." Based on a conversation with Mr. Pack on June 21. there seems to have been a misunderstanding as to whether the courts were in use while his recordings were being made. As he told me then, "They don’t play tennis there anymore." I and many other neighbors can testify to the fact that the courts are and have been used daily by the public. I doubt if anyone knows now how many people played on the courts Saturday and Sunday March 2 & 3rd, 1996. There were only two sampling periods that counted, Saturday and Sunday between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. and one was largely voided. The effect is small since the minimal L90 can be no less than 40 dB by law. However the fact remains that testing was not done over ambient conditions as the law requires. The correct noise limit is no larger than 56 and may be 55 dB. If testing is to be repeated, it should not be allowed to raise the Noise limit at Winterlodge above 56 by disregarding the recordings already done. II Application of the Brookside data in order to estimate maximum and average noise levels under both the previous and proposed tennis court scenarios at Middlefield Before getting to Mr. Pack’s numbers, it is necessary to describe exactly what he means by pre~io~s and proposed scenarios. The pr~¥i~s scenario, as borne out by his computations in Table 4.5, is defined to be all four courts in use simultaneously. It is,a worst case scenario under the status quo. The proposed scenario is defined to be all five courts in use simultaneously (four resurfaced and the proposed new 5th court), again the worst case scenario in the future. It is quite important to compare future use levels with the current real level of tennis court usage. That is, after all, what we neighbors face in the way of an increase. In a conversation with Mr. Carl Stoffel of the Transportation Department on July 15th, he reiterated his estimate that the fifth court would add about 33 new (one way) auto trips per weekday. Multiply by 5 for a total of about 165 trips per day, on average, for all the proposed courts, not peak usage such as for tournaments. From my own estimal~es, the current average number of one way trips per.weekday for tennis players is no more than 15, so that neighbors are facing about a tenfold increase in tennis court usage just during the week. Weekend figures are even higher. While the maximum noise levels would increase a few decibels the big increase would be in the _quantity of new noise, much of it in violation of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. ,. 5 I believe it is possible to briefly summarize the main results of Table 4.5, and the report, as follows (all entries being rounded by Mr. Pack to the nearest integer):" Average Noise Levels at Winter Lodg_e . Old dB levels New dB levels North Property Line 54 57 West Property Line 51 5 I* Maximum Noise Levels at Winter Lodge Old dB Levels New dB Levels North Property Line 64 64 West Property Line 56 56 The * refers to the fact that this is the correct reading taken from Table 4.5 and not from the fourth bullet on page 4, which reads 47 dB. In our conversation.of June 21 Mr. Pack acknowledged that the page 4 bullet should read 51 dB, being 5dB below the Noise Ordinance limit. For the purposes of discussion I assume the Noise Ordinance limit to be 56 dB in all cases. The following assumptions Mr. Pack makes on page 3 determine all the subsequent estimates in Table 4.5: "TI~ere are two significant naise sources created during tennis playing: I) the ball being hit [he does not say "serve" here but on page 6, 3rd paragraph implies "primarily" serves] and 2) the squeak of tennis shoes sliding on the court surface. The Maximum measured noise level of a tennis ball being hit was 58 dBAat distance 40 feet, the maximum noise level of tennis shoes squeaking on the court surface was 52 dBA at 40 feet and the average noise level measured during I hour of tennis playing was 48 dBA (LEQ) at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the court." By "Brookside" report I refer to (c) "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim & Racquet Club, Saratoga", by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Project No. 21-093, September 7, 1989. With regard to maximum noise events, the Brookside report lists the results of measured Noise Levels at 5 locations on August 31, 1989 aI~d July 8, 1989 at Brookside without any mention of the amount of tennis playing during recording.. The only place where 58 dB is mentioned in connection with tennis playing is in Table I of ref.(c) on page 3, for the one date of July 8, 1989 (Saturday) as the peak measured noise level on that date for 2 recording locations. .We are not given the measurement 6 capabilities of recording equipment, ~het..her..~!t.,..was fast enough to fairly or realistically record short "impulse" (ype so(rods. Mr. Pack argues that ~,,~ ~,,,i~ ,~,,y~,, of these ball hits or shoe squeaks is so short that to be additive they must occur at precisely the same time (page 4, 3rd to last paragraph, Winterlodge report). In fact checking the computations in Table 4.5, events such as ball hits or shoe squeaks are so fast that Mr. Pack ignores the probability that two or more such events will ever occur at the same time under either the old or new tennis scenarios. The entries marked TOTAL under BALL and SHOE are really the maximum sound levels, not the sum. Any two simultaneous events would add up to 3 dBA to the TOTAL depending on the distance from the observer. Realistically, ball hit sounds are not instantaneous. Any usable study of dBA recordings must account for different players, different equipment and conditions on several days, not just two at one clients’ swim and tennis club. There simply is not enough data given in reference (c) to justify whether 58 dB for a tennis hit, serve or otherwise, is really an appropriate peak noise level for general application. Shoe squeaks are treated similarly.’ The big problem, unfortunately, is voice noise, a subject Mr. Pack igno~es in his Winterlodge analysis. Under I~he Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10.020 Definitions, paragraph (c) .... Noise level" means the maximum continuous sound level or repetive 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 arranged to the setting appropriate to the type of noise being measured." And in Section 9.10.050 Public Property noise limits, paragraph (a) "No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on public property, a noise level more than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this chapter." The noise levels from Mr. Pack’s imported Brookside data for one tennis court exceed the requirements of Section 9.10.050 by 2 dBA for ball hits, at 58 dBA for 40 feet. By applying the basic formula used in Table 4.5 (Cf. L(d) in my "Technical Section"), at twenty-five feet the Avg.noise would be 52.08 dBA, peak Ball hits 6:2.08 dBA and peak SHOE squeaks 56.08 dBA, the latter two exceeding his Palo Alto Noise Limit. In the past ball throwing machines have been in use at the courts and I suspect, but have no figures available to prove it, that they also exceed the noise ordinance and should be banned. And.practice walls can produce up to 62 dBA (Cf. his Reference (c), Page A-2). Mr. Pack apparently is concerned, with justification I believe, about ball hits and shoe squeaks possibly violating the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. If they are to be included because they are repetitive then it seems to me that voice noise has to be considered repetitive also, since 7 many players persist in talking to one another during tennis play, for reasons of keeping score, .social commentary on various shots or grunting or groaning, often far overshadowing the popping sounds of serves and hits and squeaks of shoes. From the fact that a tennis court is 78 feet in length and players are working hard and often communicating above other tennis noises, one can expect recurrent loud conversation during typical play. Added to the fact that some voices carry much better than others and that there may be onlookers and perhaps a public address system adding more noise, the total amount from one game can be appreciable. As a guideline° from my refernce (4), page 41, estimates are given for various levels of people noise and their dB levels at specified distances: "Very annoying shouting at 2 feet, 90 dB Very loud talking, 2 feet 80 dB Loud Talking, 2 feet 70 dB Intrusive Loud "raIking at 4 feet 60 dB Normal talking at 12 feet 50 dB" By applying the standard formula [L(d) described in my "Technical Section"] these values can be immediately converted to dB at 40 feet: Very annoying shouting at 40 feet, 64 dB Very loud talking at 40 feet, 54 dB Loud talking at 40 feet, 44 dB Intrusive.Loud Talking at 40 feet, 40 dB Normal talking at 40 feet, 40 dB I have selected what I believe to be a fair estimate of 60 dB at 40 feet for the level of repetitive voice noise often present during tennis play, and offensive to listeners such as myself. This estimate is I) consistent with the levels.in reference (4) and 2) from personal experience I find that the most frustrating problem is not ball hits. but voice noise, which is far more repetitious than shoe squeaks although at lower frequencies. The 60 dB figure is for two people playing on one court. For crowds on portable bleachers, which CSI proposes, an upper estimate of 70 dB at 40 feet is not unreasonable. Forty feet is the distance Mr. Pack uses in his Table 4.5 for his Brookside data. These estimates immediately allow one [See my "Technical Section"] to obtain numerical dBA estimates of voice noise coming from all the tennis courts to each property line, just as Mr. Pack has done.for ball hits and squeaks. I have not extended my results to the North’or West House Setback part of his table 4.5 simply because I am not willing to abandon my back yard. The numerical results appear in my TABLE 8.5, between my pages 8 and 9 and append the results in Mr. Pack’s TABLE 4.5 with the setback deletions. TABLE 8.5 also changes my summaries on my page 6 with regard to maximum noise as follows: 8 0 0 Maximum Noise Levels at Winter Lodg_e~ Including. Voice Noise Old dB Levels New dB Levels North Property Line 66 to 76 66 to 76 west Property Line 58 to 68 58 to 68 At1 these values exceed the Palo Alto City Noise limit of 56 dB. Note that with the orientation change in courts I and :2 and Mr. Pack’s distance assumptions, the. maximum noise must stay the same. If bleacher.s are placed at any of courts I to 4 the noise maxima would be at the upper Maximum levels. Despite the fact that voice noise is not mentioned in Mr. Pack’s report we do have it now and have to anticipate that it will increase greatly if the proposed plan is allowed--and by several dB over the legal sound limits. The total amount of noise received throughout the day will increase severalfold (Cf. my page 5, last paragraph). I am not predicting the maxima dB levels will increase several fold but that they will increase because a larger population is using the facility. Serious players paying $I00 for membership can be expected to exercise their rights to shout, particularly if they are taking lessons, playing in tournaments, league games, doubles or cheering others on. Quite aside from what sound meters say about dBA, it is also recognized that there is a. psychological component that can change the effect. For example, according to Thomas D. Rossing, [page 603 my reference (5)]: "Because noise that occurs at night is usually more annoying° a day-night equivalent level Ldn is frequently used to describe noise. In arriving at Ldn, one adds I0 dB to the sound level between I0 P.M. and 7 A.M. in the averaging process." This effect will not drop to 0 immediately after 7 a.m. Which means that for early morning tennis, the perceived loudness may surpass any of the maximum numbers in Mr. Pack’s report. Mr. Pack writes on page 7 of the Winterlodge report, 2nd sentence, and page 4 of ref (c), middle of the page, "The average noise level will increase by 3 dB, which is a barely noticeable increase" and "A difference of 3 dB is "just, perceptible" to the human ear." This is not necessarily true. The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale, covering a huge breadth of intensities, and like the familiar Richter earthquake scale, a doubling of intensity is equivalent to the addition of 3 units. Whether or not this is noticeable depends on where you start. For very faint sounds, a doubling will still be undetectable. However at a noisy party, doubling one’s voice intensity can make the difference between being heard and not being heard. And the closer you get to a painful intensity, say 90 dB, the addition of 3 dB will become more and more noticeable. Just as for earthquakes, two 7.0 earthquakes will be more noticeable than one. Two 8.0 earthquakes even more so. 9 The average noise level Mr. Pack proposes suffers from a major problem: it is a meaningless descriptor. Any average will remove from consideration troublesome peaks and present a mild and hopefully tolerable level ~f noise. It is like someone tapping me with a hammer, arguing that he has a graph smoothing out the peaks of pain and suffering, and the result shows only mild discomfort on the average, not really a problem. Not a very convincing argument for people. That even level is not what CSI is going to deliver to neighbors. Would that someone could transform tennis noise to such a bland form--the problem would be solved. Again, Mr. Pack’s average noise level figure for one tennis, court in operation is 48 dB, imported from his Brookside report. His own hourly measurements in Appendix C for LEQ at. Winterlodge average out to be 49.5 for Saturday March 2nd during the proposed hours of operation, and for Sunday’s hours of operation 48.7. [LEQ is "a sound pressure level of steady noise that would give the same total energy as the noise being rated" p. 603 from refernce (5). LEQ values are labeled LVL in Appendix C according to Mr. Pack.] Mr. Pack’s overall LEQ dB averages out for both days at Palo Alto, during proposed hours of operation, at 49.3. How can the projected average noise level, 48 dB of his page 3, 3rd bullet, arising from One court in play be less than this 49.3 average ambient.LEQ value at Palo Alto? To be consistent, If Mr. Pack were to add 3 dB’ to 49 to reflect playing conditions here (his page I, mi.ddle paragraph, last sentence), then he should use at least 52 dB in TABLE 4.5, not 48. This would raise all his TOTAL values for average noise by 4 dB. The summary of TABLE 4.5 would then be as follows: Total Average Noise Levels at Winter Lodgem(Modified). North Property Line West Property Line Old dB levels New dB levels 58 61 55 55 Ths average figures computed in Table 4.5 now using the 48 dB assumption are misleading and do not address the real noise problem. If Mr. Pack insists on attempting to use them, I insist that he raise them above the ambient level. A tennis court in use is not a noise abatement device. Ill Recommendation to reduce the maximum noise level from the service of balls to acceptable levels by construction of a 6 ft. high acoust’ically-effective barrier along the entire north property line. This section of the report offers some guidelines for possible noise relief for the northei-n boundary neighbors. How much noise abatement can result from such a wall is unspecified. The following diagram from 10 my reference (3) illustrates the general effect. Figure 4.5. Diffraction of plane waves by a barrier. The higher the frequency, the greater the noise free shadow zone to be expected. Neighbors on the Eastern boundary, being elevated much more than the Northern or Western neighbors have an exposure to the sounds of Court No. 5 as well as Winterlodge. I estimate the distance to the property line from the 5th court to be about 100 feet, and hence the noise maxima at the Eastern boundary from this one court alone can easily be computed [using the standard formula L(d) in "Technical Section"]: II Averag~ Noise Ball Noise Shoe Noise Voice Noise Voice Noise 40 dB 50 44 52 dB (Assuming a 60 dB source) 62 dB~(For a 70 dB source) Hence the sound level can be expected to exceed the city noise limit for bleacher crowds even without reflection off the North wall. (In a phone conversation with Mr. Pack on June 21, he estimated that a North wall would add no more than I or 2 dB for the Western neighbors.) All the neighbors to the West are s.ubject to peak noise levels of 56 dB [Mr. Pack’s figure] plus relection noise of the North wail. Since Matadero Creek" runs between the tennis codrts and the Ellsworth properties and occupies about 40 feet of space° it seems unlikely that a 6 foot sound wall would have much of an effect. Incidentally, there is a double wall already in piace over Matadero Creek designed solely as a flood water channel. It is about 3 feet high and, while perhaps acoustically soundproof, offers no protection from tennis court noise, which I can assure you goes over freely into our back yards and bedrooms. EIlsworth Place residents have wood fences in their back yards, but I think there is no question they are not even remotely up to soundproof standards. Since no sound wall has been.proposed there is no question--residents to the West get zero protection from all the noises of the tennis courts. If, as I believe, no relief will Or Can be prdposed, I ask that you deny the use permit. We would be within 50’ feet o~ three courts, now in sporadic use, growing to about a tenfold increase in noise sources admittedly exceeding the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance.’ Technical Section The important numerical results of this analysis follow from just a few elementary physics formula. As an example, annoying loud shouting can be measured at 90 dB at 2 feet. This measurement can under ideal conditions be used to find an estimated dB reading of that same shouting at d feet, whatever d may be, by applying the free field point source formula L(d) = 90 + 20 x Iog(21d), log to base 10 where L(d) is the standard decibel measurement. Calculating at d=40 (all distances are in feet), the dB reading for voice noise at 40 feet turns out to be 70 dB to two significant figures. If there are two sound sources, each with dB levels L I and L2 measured at a third point, the combined sound level at the third point, again under ideal conditions (Mr. Pack’s assumption for .his TABLE 4.5) is given by the formula L(For the Sum of two sources) = I0 x log( I " I0 The formula can be expanded to five sources using five sources instead of two, and that i~ what Mr. Pack does in his TABLE 4.5. Each number appearing under "average" is the corresponding term L I, L2,...L5. The repeated application of these two formula ~yield all the results in Mr. Pack’s table "TENNIS PLAYING NOISE LEVELS WINTERLODGE OF PALO ALTO". While the distances are approximate (Mr. Pack mentioned to me in our conversation June ~Ist that "he did not use a tape measure") one should keep in mind that if anyone hits a tennis ball at 15 feet instead of 20 feet from the North property line, for example, the maximum dB reading at the Northern property line would increase from 64.02 dB to 66.52, an increase of 2.5 dB. I have recalculated all Mr. Pack’s figures in the TOTAL column in each of the sections of Table 4.5. The average noise level at each boundary is calculated from the sum of five sources, the most predominant source being the nearest. For example in the upper left hand corner of Table 4.5 the TOTAL average noise levels at the North Property line are nearly the same as if court number 4 were the only contributor, it being only only 20 feet away. For BALL and SHOE noise the TOTAL values are really maximum values, (the assumption is that ball hits or shoes squeaks are instantaneous and never occur at the same time) and the values at each court are calculated from the L(d) formula above, using the Brookside data of page 3, part B. All values of Table 4.5 depend entirely on the Brookside data. If any of that data is in error, so is Table 4.5. One should also note that the TOTAL values have been rounded off to the nearest integer. For 13 example, the dB ~alue of Ball hits at the western property line under the old scenario is really 56.06 dB, the maximum coming from courts 2, 3 or 4, which are only 50 feet away from the West property line. By rounding down to 56.00 Mr. Pack can argue that the TOTAL dB level is just a_[t the Palo Alto noise limit. Actually, with reflection from the North wall., the values will exceed 56 by a decibel or two at least. I have included in TABLE 8.5 my computations which show the expected noise levels from voice noise, using an input range of 60 to 70 dB at the 40 foot distance, exactly as Mr. Pack has done for BALL and SHOE noise. For example, the entry for Court 4 in the North Property Line, OLD Scenario, with 70 dB Voice noise input is L(d) = 70 + :20 x Iog(40/d); and at d=20, L(d)= 76.02 The results of all my calculations appear in the columns under "Voice Noise" in my-TABLE 8.5. References (1) "Acoustical Analysis for the Planned Tennis Court Remodel Project, Winterlodge~.of Palo Alto, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto," April 8, 1996 by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants. (2) "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club, Saratoga," September 7, 1989, by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc, Consulting Engineers. (3) "Acoustics for You," by James H. Prout and Gordon R. Bienvenue, 1990. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. (4) "Noise, Noise, Noise" by Jerry Grey, 1975. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia. (5) "The Science of Sound," 2nd Edition, Thomas D. Rossing. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990. 14 EDWARD L PA(~K ASSOCIATES,INC. September 7, Proiect No. 1989 21-083 Mr. Bob Dunnett Brookside Swim and Racquet Club 19127 Cox Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject:Noise Assessment Study. of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club, Saratoga Ref. (a) :Noise Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, Article 7-30, Noise Control, Adopted August 1987 Dear Mr. Dunnett: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club in Saratoga. The noise levels presented herein were evaluated against the noise standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance, Ref.(a), which specifies a noise level limit of 6 dBA above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. | Sections I and II of this rep6~t contain our findings and evaluations, respectively. Appendix A, attached,.contains noise data measured during a swim meet. I.Findinqs The findings presented below include the results of the noise level analysis and an evaluat.ion against the standards of the city of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. EECF~’~-~ Oep~" .., ~n,~’~’’ AUDIO IrNGINEIrNINQ SOCIETY INSTITUTE: OF IrNVIRONMENTAL SCI[NCES The standards specify a limit of 6 d~A above the local a~blent. Measurements at several locations along the tennis club and residential property lines indicated an a~blent level of 48 dBA. Thus, the noise level limit at the resldentlal property plane~ is 54 dBA. The noise levels ~itlgatlon measures. shown below are without the application of A.NQise Levels Durin~ Typical Weekday Activities The naxiuu~ noise levels measured at five locations along the east and north tannls club proptrty line8 ranged from 43 to 52 dBA. Thus, the noise levels .produced by the club are in compliance With the tifF of Saratoga Noise Ordinan~. ~oise Levels Durlnm ~TT~ical Weekend Activities The uaximum noise levels measured at five locations along the east and north property lines of the club ranged from 48 to 58 dBA. Thus, the noise levels exceeded, the limits of ~he Saratoga NolseOrdlnanceb~ 2 dBa~tw~ locations. II.Evaluations of Noise Levels To dstarnins the noise impacts on surrounding residential areas, noise level measurements were taken at five l~ations along the east and north tennis club property lines. -3 - Measurements were made on August 31, 1989.Using a Bruel and Kjaer 2231 sound analyzer. This test reflected typical weekday a~ivities. Measurements were also made on July 8, 1989 using a Ge~ Rad Type 1933 sound analyzer. This test reflected typical weekend activities. Measurement Location i was approximately 100 ft. from p~ol area. Locations 2 ~hrough 5 were approxiaately 40 ft. from the respe=tive tennis court areas. The results of the measurements are shown in Table I, below. Noise" Levels Measured at the Brookslde Cl~b Property Line Location Date and peak NOise Level. August 31. 198~ July 8. 1989 I. East of Pool 52 2. -Blea~hers at Easterly Tennis Courts 48 3. Northeast Corner of Tennis Courts 45 4. Water Fountain at North Property Line 44 5. Near Driveway at North Property Line 43 48 58 58 56 51 As k~ovn above, three locations at the club are lapacted by noise levels in excess of the standards. Horsier, the residence nearest Ix~ation 2 is approximately 80 ft. away ~d behind the property line fence. Therefore, the peak noise ls~el at this residence is 50 dBA and is in compliance vith the standards. -4 The noise level at the northeast also 2 dB in excess of the standards. property line fence reduces the noise not a solid air-tight noise barrier. corner of the club site is However, the existing levels by 2 dB, as it is Thus, the peaknoise level i=pact’ing the residence nearest the northeast corner of the tennis courts is 56 dBa. Noise dimini=h=s.oat a rate of 6 dB for eaCh doubling of the distance fro~ the source to the receiver. Therefore, locations a~ greater distances from the noise source receive lower noise levels. difference of 3 dB ts "Just perceptible" to the h~an ear. In conclusion, one residence along the nozl~bea$1: corner of the club is i~pactedby tennis ~i~ a~ivitl~ ~~ ~ed~ce level 18 2 ~, ~e e~uing ~~ ~y not ~ ~oti~le. The noise levels presented are from field measuzemen~ and calculations and arecorrecttothe best of our knowledge. However, changes in activities, apparatus, or equipment may . produce long-range noise levels differentfrol our rut results. -5- If you have any questions or would like an elaboration of this report, please ~all ~. EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC: Attaclment:Append:ix A The noise levels presented below were measured on June 24,. 1989 during a semi-annual swimmeet. The noise levels were.measured using a Gen Rad Type1933 sound analyzer, which was calibrated before and after the tests to assure accurst. The noise levels were evaluated agalnstthe s~andards of the .c~ty of Saratoga Noise Ordinance, which specifle~ a li~It of 6 dB "a~ove the local ambient at the nearest property plane. The ambient noise level at the adjacent proper~y planes ~" ~tandard for this evaluation is 54 dBA. is 48 dDA. .The noise levels presented below are without the application of mitigation measures. As Levels at the N entlal Proner%v Pl A maximum noise level due to activities at the club, at the nearest residential property plant, directly across Saratoga Creek from the pool and basketball court is 71 dBA. The noise level is fron~hildronperforning cheers before the 8tar~ of a seui-a~nual 8wimmingneet and is 17 dB in excess of the standards. Thm~histle used to call the swiuneet racers tot he starting blocks produced a naximm,level of 63 dBAat the nearest residential property plane. This level is 9 dB in excess of the standard~. A-1 Individual tennis practicing against the practice wall produced levels up to 62 dBAo These levels are up to $ dB in excess of the standards. The general noise of the swim see~ produced levels up to 59 dBA at the nearest residential property plane. ¯ Thus, the levels are up to 5 dB in excess of the standards. Table II, below, shows the noise levels measured at five property line locatlons during the swim meet. NOiSe Levels Measured at thq Brookslde Property Line Location Peak Noise Levels. dBA Bleachers at Easterly Tennis Courts 58 Northeast Corner of Tennis Courts 58 4. Water Fountain at North,Proper~y Li~e 56 5. Near Driveway at North Property Line 56 t "Basketball playing produced noise levels up to 64 d~ a~ a I0. ft. distance. At ~he nearest residential property ILia, this level is reduced to 39 In conclusion, noise levels produced during the sa~i-annual swim meet al~up to 17 dB in excess of the standard8 of the City of Sarat~jaNoise Ordinance. A-2 Simple Facts~ Page 60 of the city of Palo Alto comprehensive plan, under noise section, it is stated:" Noise levels over 5.decibels disrupt all types of normal listening activities. Noise also causes such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance,.stress and tension. If these ~ffects are continued, they can cause very seri~ous emotional and psycholb~ical problems" Data from Pack Report for Price Court noise ordinance limit average noise level maximum noise level 56 decibels 57 decibels 64 decibels On page 5, it recommends a6 foot high acoustically- effective barrier along the entire north property line. How effective? No supporting data from Pack report. Question:What kind of. players were playing at the Brookside club in Saratoga when Mr. Pack took his measurement on which the WinterLodge report is based? Planning Commission Hearing November 20, 1996 Requested Additional Conditions if Use Permit Is Approved Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states on pages 60-61 that "..Each person’s reaction to noise depends on the characteristics of the noise itself--th~ loudness, duration, and frequency content...Noise levels over- 55 dBA disrupt all types of normal listening activities. Noise also causes such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance, stress and tension. If these effects are continued, they can cause very serious emotional and psychological problems...So protection against the intrusion of disturbing noise is particularly important to mental and emotional health." It appears from Dr. Salmon’s sound stu}ly that a practical sound barrier would not bring the decibel levels of ball hits in. compliance with either the municipal code limits or the Comprehensive Plan. If mitigations will not bring the noise down to legal limits~ then the project cannot go forward. Should the project be approved despite the above, I then request that the following conditions be added to the use permit. Some of these are in addition to the list submitted by John Abraham on November 13. These will be marked by an asterisk * I. A sound wall be built between the four courts along Matadero Creek and Ellsworth Place for whatever relief it will afford. An acoustically effective wall, solid, air-tight and properly maintained, would reduce the impact of ball hits, as well as .voice and other noises. The barrier would probably need to be at least 9 feet high and made of a material, such as masonry, which would remain solid and air-tight over time and weather. Examples of such walls can be found on Colorado by St. Mark’s Church and on Ross Road, surrounding three sides of the YMCA. 2. Later starting hours, no earlier than 9 am on weekdays and 10 am on weekends and holidays. 3. The prohibition of league play and tournaments. These competitive activities can be held elsewhere, as they have been up to now (Rinconada, Mitchell and Cubberley Parks) and possibly, in the future, Greer Park. 4. Prohibition of practice walls, outdoor amplification equipment such as loudspeakers, and mechanical devices such as bail throwing machines. (The Saratoga P.lanning Commission recommended removal of the Brookside club practice walls because their use caused the noise ordinance to be exceeded.) *5. The tennis courts along the creek to be moved further back from the creek to leave a minimum setback of ten feet of densely landscaped buffer in accordance with the zoning Code Section 18.32.070 Special requirements in the PF public facilities district, subsection (a) (3) (page 1859 of the Municipal Code.) More than ten feet is required to be effective. The Comprehensive Plan states on pages 62-63, "Noise can be scattered, absorbed, and reduce~l to some degree by all types of leafy plants. A planted strip of trees and bushes 50-100 feet wide is necessary to reduce the noise level significantly...plants do not reflect much sound and a very large amount of thick foliage is needed to absorb measurable amounts of noise. A single row of trees or bushes is not an effective noise barrier." 6. There is a condition in the use permit decision that a phone number be made available for neighbors to call in case of complaints about keyholders violating the.rules and playing before 8 am. However, this. is an empty condition if one reaches an answering machine. If someone from CSI does not come immediately in order to identify the violators, they cannot enforce their own rules. This condition needs to be modified - see below 7(8). 7. We propose that some good neighbor conditions be added to the use permit such as: (a) the applicant is to provide a neighborhood liaison who can ~be reached at all times by neighbors, perhaps via pager, and that this person be authorized to deal with complaints on the spot~ (b) regular meetings be held between neighbors and CSI. ’We also request, as well, I~c) City monitoring. Some of these ideas are included under "Alternatives" in Lisa Grote’s report for this meeting and also contained in. my .October 3 letter to you’. (These conditions are included in the use permits for the ~YMCA and St.~Mark’s Church.) *8. We request that the applicant be required to keep a log of complaints by neighbors, as-the YMCA does; that this log be periodically reviewed by .the City. *9. Use of alcohol bebanne~i from tl~e site. The neighbors of this site are not the people who will benefit from the proposed project but will be paying a high price without City protection. The fact that this site is.City ownedland should impose a special responsibility on the part of the City to safeguard the welfare of the citizens.who reside there. November 19, 1996 Lynn Chiapella 631 Colorado Avenue Palo ’Alto, CA 94306 Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 RE: 3009 Middlefield Road Page I-of 2 Dear Commissioners: This proposal creates a second regional recreation facility on this site with a high intensity noise factor and puts an undue burden on the surrounding residents. There are no conditions ~h~ ~t~i~t th~ %~nni~ facility to Palo Alto ~id~nt~ o~ giv~ priority to immediately adjacent neighbors and Midtown residents. There are no conditions that restrict the tennis facil.lty to i00 key members or to keeping the facility an affordable low cost of $I00 per year even though the City is only getting $i.00 per year rent for 20 years for more than an acre of City owned land. It is an inappropriate use of the land. At the very minimum this proposal needs enforceable conditions, which it currently does not have. The Planning Division does not have the responsibility of enforcing the rules and may not realize that the Building Division cannot enforce vague conditions with no objective measurement or consequence. Condition 83 effectively overrides the noise ordinance on Saturday end Sunday by specifically allowing the tennis facility to operate starting a 8 am and generate noise more than 9 decibels above the ambient noise level. The hours of 9 am on Saturday and I0 am on Sunday should be specifically included. The ending hour should be sunset, which is the City standard in other recreational areas and certain parks, rather than dark, which is open to individual interpretation. Condition 85 does not reguir~ a response to residents when theY report before and after-hour play to the tennis facility manager. There is also no requirement for said manager to submit a quarterlyreport to the City of reported violations and the effective resolution of these violations. Stated in condition #5 is that the only effective remedy for neighbors is to rely on police enforcement. Most police personnel do not have noise measurement equipment when on patrol and cannot issue tickets immediately when a noise violation occurs. Police response to noise violations is a low priority and may take 30-60 minutes by which time it is after 8 am. Page 2-of 2 Condition #8 should require minimum 36" box trees planted above grade to replace the 3 grevillea which are just now maturing after years of neglec£ by the Winter Lodge, City, and Arco station. These a~e beautiful ARB approved trees specifically planted to provide shade and a buffer from an exceedingly ugly wall and trailer. It is ra~e to have such successful’trees surrounded by a sea of cement and asphalt. If mature trees are removed which are adjacent to residential property, there needs to be a requirement to replace them with 24" box trees to provide an immediate visual and noise buffer for. affected residents.. The 48" box trees required along the sound walls’ at~’St.’~Marks at’~600 Colorado Avenue’made all’ the difference to the neighbors adjacent, and across the street. Condition #12 may not address the flooding problem on private properly SE of the Winter Lodge and on Stern Avenue where there has been flooding for the past several year~ and which appears to have icome from the Winter Lodge.slte. This ~|Qodlng ~s the p~e- existing condition. All flooding from t~ Winter Lodge onto neighboring properties should be eliminated. Condition #16 is.unenforceable because it is subjective and depends on the contractoP judgement. Please ask the Planning ~ivisioD to use their strongest language for’~this condition, not t~Ar weakest ~language for this condition. Many of the Downtown am~ ~usiness area projects have much stronger-language with’dust c@~t[Ol required up to 2-4 times per day during the dry season. Tha~ you for your efforts to resolve .the conflicts and for your coq~ideration.in strengthening the conditions. Respectful ly, Ms. Nancy Maddox LyUe ~:hief Planning Officer City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue PaloAlto, CA 94306 Dear I"Is. Lytle: Februan..4 I 0, 1997 D-~partrnen/o[ Pianning ane Community Environment Regarding the Planning Cornmission.action .taken at tile January 29, 1997 meeting concerning 3009 MiddlefieldRoad: "Continue the item and direct staff to hire an independent third-party acoustical engineer to review and analyze all acoustical information submitted 1o date and recommend mitigation for potential noise impacts. This information would be used to supplement and possibly amend the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration;" " !n order ~o fairly and accurately carry out this recomrnendation I urge that the following be included in the information given the acoustical engineer: ¯ Mr. Pack’s basic report dated April 8, 1996 together with a copy of his reference ,c "Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club, Saratoga" dated September 7, 1989; his report to Mr. Colonna "Project-Generated Hourly L IO Noise Levels, Tennis Court Remodel Project, Winterlodge of Palo Alto, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto," dated November If, 1996 (one page); his report "Addendum to the Acoustical Analysis for the Planned Tennis Court Remodel Project, The Winterlodge, Palo Alto." Dr. Salmon’s first report to me "Tennis Court Noise From CSI Proposed Court Remodel Noise Levels, Mitigation" dated November 7, 1996; I)is report "Sound Wall HeigI~ts to Mitigate Tennis Ball Hit ~,ound.,, for Mrs. Wang, dated Decernber 16 1996; his report of the December 19 meeting or the two engineers, dated December 26, 1996 (one page); his report for the Planning Commission "Tennis Court Noise From Proposed Courts Additional Comments," dated January 23, 1997. ~ Copies of tI~e current Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, CompreI~ensive Plan; Acopyof the official planof the project, orif that is impossible, readw access to a cnpq for measurin~ certain important di"~.u~L:e~ ....... uO,,u by .,. r.~,n,uN, o,. ,,,direclIN., from tt~e plans; a copy of ’"-,.,,u survey ~ .....’ ~ .....’ ....~ ""’" !992 for the proposed project (reduced copy erclosed)also appearing on the last pages of CMR: 221:95. ¯ Copy of the 1986 Noise Ordinance for the City of Saratoga (copy enclosed) wIlicll gives the explanation for wily there are two sets of measurements for tennis ball hit noise in this case. I have enclosed our disagreements which have not received a hearing so far, and which are basic to any proposed mitigation. Consideration by the consultant engineer, I. believe, could greatly help. to zero in on the main issues. I would appreciate it if you would include .this statement in the information given to the consultant. Also, when the report from the .consultant is available, please allow us time to read it before the April 30th I~earing. ~--,J,j~hn K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California 94306 Mitigation-Issues Regarding Mr. Pack’s Acoustical Reports on ’^."nterLodge;,l Tennis by JohnK. Abraharn.. FebruarN~ I0, 1997 ¯ With regard to rnitigation for any of the neighbors, as Dr. Salmon has pointed out in I~is report of January 23, 1997, the correct plane to consider under the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance is the plane nearest tI~e respective neighbors o~ the source property. In the case of the Ellsworth Place appellants this means tI~e property line on the CSI side of Matadero Creek, at the CSI fence, no~ the neighbor’s, prnpert~_ , line across the ~ .... ~I,," which borders Santa Clara County Water District Property. Mr. Pack’s use of our proper~y line gives us a 56 dBA level for peak noise under hi~ measurements. However, if one uses the correct property line (wI~icl~ I measure to be about 27 feet from the nearest playing boundary of court No. 3), tl~elevel rises to 61 dBA. While the current court location may not be exactly the same as the proposed distances, the accurate determination of tl)e distance from each court to the CSI property line nearest EllswortI~ is pivotal to the appropriate mitigation proposed and sI~ould be determined from the official plans. Mrs. Wang’s distance of 20 feet from court end (court No. 5) or side (court No. 4) to her property line would likely remain the same. ~ Mr. Pack’s reference (c) was performed at Saratoga, and the applicable ordinance was enacted in 1986 tthere was no noise ordinance enacted in 1987 according to Betsy Curry, City of Saratoga), since changedin 1991. II~ave included a copy and draw attention to page 7-52 "(e) Noise level means the~n~,,~mum" -’, conlinuous. ~~-~.o.md level or repetitive peak level produced by a source or group or sources as measured witI~ a preci~-~ -~ ~~.~ 3n sound level meter using the "A" wei£1~tin~ scale, and the meter respose function set to "slow"." TI)e key word "slow" gives .tI~e explanation of how the two types of measurements, Dr. Salmon’s and Mr. .... ’-.tsPack’s, arose in the first place. Mr. Pa~I, s measuremen were likely in accord with the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, complete.d 7 years before I~is Palo Alto report. Palo Afro’s Ordinance says the sound level meter £hould be arranged to the setting appropriate to the type of noise being measured under definition (c), page 906. There is no mention there of "slow" setting under "Noise I~,’~,." The definition of "Local ambient" on pages 906-7 does specify "slow" level, but tI~is measurement is supposed to be independent of the "Noise level" ¯ In his argument developing ambient noise level at tI~e site (page 6, Report of April 8, 1996) Mr. Pack uses I~ourly L90 to find "[l)e lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measui-ed with a precision snund I~’~ _. using sl ~"~ ~ " Tl~ere is no mention anywI~ere in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance of L90. As [I~e Noise Report for the YMCA points out (page 75,-2nd to last paragrapI~--a copy is in the Commissioners packet for the November 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting) tile lowest sound level to repeat itself would be a sound level exceeded essentially I00 percent of the time, not 90% of the tirne. Assuming Mr. Pack’s unattended data in Appendix C to be correct, Lmin is below 40 dBA for the last 3 counts, 39, 40, 41 and other times during proposed hours of operation. While Lmin might occasionally be too small, L90 is manifestly unfair in the other extreme to the neighbors. There is less objection to using L99, but no such data was included in Appendix C. m Consideration of the LIO criterion from page 62 of the current Palo Alto ComPFehensive Plan, while kind to the neighbor’s case, is really .not relevant here. LIO leaves open what kind of noise occurs in the worst 6 minutes of sound levels of each hour. Tt~e surn total of all tennis hit noise, at .02 seconds per hit, would require at least 3000 hits just to add up to one minute in an hour, or !6,000 for six minutes. In real tennis play one could add in whole minutes of other loud noise each hour and still not trigger the LIO criterion, which would then be measuring the ambient L IO. L IO is simply unaffected by impulse noise. Health and Sanitation §7-30.010 ARTICLE 7-30 NOISE CONTROL Sections: 7-30.010 7-30.020 7-30.030 7-30.040 7-30.050 7-30.060 7-30.070 7-30.080 7-30.090 7-30.I00 Declaration of policy Definitions Noise levels for residential zoning districts Noise level for commercial and industrial zoning districts Exemptions Construction activities Amplified sound Exception permits Excessive noise;standards to determine violation Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties $7-30.010 Declaration of policy It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City that the peace, health, safety and welfare of its citizens require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the communi-ty subject to its police power. It is the intention of the City to control the adverse effects of such noise sources on the citizens under any condition of use, especially those conditions of use which have the most severe impact upon any person or neighborhood. $7-30.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Ambient ~oise means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources, near and far. Local ambient is the noise level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated~ddentifiable sources at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made, and when the noise source at issue is silent. However, for purposes of this Article, in no case shall the local ambient be considered or determined to be less than: :.. (1).40dBA for interior noise in Section 7-30.030, (2)45dBA in all other Sections of this Article. If the local ambient is largely composed of noise produced by other individual identifiable sources which would otherwise be operating continuously during the fifteen minute measurement period and contributing significantly to the ambient sound level, determination of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these separate identifiable noise sources silent. Page 7-51 Health and Sanitation ~7-30.030 $7-30.030 Noise levels for residential zoning districts (a) No person shall cause, produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device or any combination of same, in a single-family residentia.l zoning district, a noise level more than 6dBA above the local ambient at any poidt outside of the property plane. (b) No person shall cause, produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device or any combination of same, in a multi-family residential zoning district, a noise level more than 6dBA above the local ambient three feet from any wall; flo.or or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property, except within the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located. $7-30.040 Noise level for commercial and industrial zoning districts No person shall cause, produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device or any combination of same, in any commercial or industrial zoning district, a noise level more than 8dBA above the local ambient at .any point outside of the property plane. $7-3 0.05 0 Exe rnptions (a) Certain noise levels during certain hour~ Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding 70dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the provisions of Sections 7-30.030 and 7-30.040 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. (b)Emergencies~ Emergencies are exempt from the provisions of this Article. $7-30.060 Construction activities Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit shall be allowed if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (a) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet from the. source thereof. If the device or other source is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure, but at a distance as close to the equipment or source as possible. (b) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 86dBA. Page 7-53 Health and Sanitation ~;7-30.080 used or expended by the City in defraying the cost of monitoring noise produced by such activity or otherwise enforcing this Article, shall be returned to the applicant at the expiration of such permit. (f) The commercial and non-commercial use of sound amplifying equipmen, t shall be subject to the following regulations: ’ (1)The only sounds permitted shall be either music or human speech or both. (2)Except on Sundays and legal holidays, the operation of sound amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. On Sundays and legal holidays, the operation of sound amplifying equipment forcommercial purposes shall only occur between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with no time limitation as to non-commercial amplification other than as may be required by Paragraph (f)(5) of this Section. (3)Sound level emanating from sound amplifying equipment shall not exceed fifteen decibels above the ambient base noise level. (4)Sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred feet of any church, school or hospital (5)In all events the volume of sound and the hours of operation sha]_l be so controlled that the sound will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility. (g) When the amplified sound is to be conducted in a public park, the provisions of Section 11-05.060 of this Code shall also be applicable, the noise level standards of Section II-05.060 having precedence over the standards set forth in Paragraph (f).of this Section. Application for a group use permit under Section Il- l0.020 of this Code shall.also constitute the registration statement required under this Sectidn. $7-30.080 Exception permits If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that immediate compliance with the requirements of this Article would be impractical or unreasonable, the Planning Director may issue a permit to allow exception from any or all of the provisions contained in this Article, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short duration as possible and shall be .conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of methods thereof in appropriate cases. $7-30.090 Excessive noise; standards to determine violation (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to wilfully make or continue or cause to Page 7-55 A.P.NO. 127-53-15 PREPARE BY: J. KIEHL CHECKED BY: J. BOURQUIN APPROVED BY: J. REMLEY DATE: JTJLY 13, 1992 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginnin~ at the centerline of Matadero Creek; said point being North ~7~ 13’ 54’.’ .East, 261.62 feet from th~ intersection of the Northeasterly line of Middlefield Road with the centerline of Matadero Creek as shown on that certain mapentitled "Parcel Map Being a Resubdivision of a Portion of Lot 74 of C.M. Wooster Company’s Subdivision" recorded March 29, 1973 in Book 3.20 of Maps on Page 3, Santa Clara County official Records; Thence along the centerline of said Matadero Creek North 47°13’ 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. Containing 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: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Middlefield Road, 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 3~ 00’ 00" East, 153.00 feet; Thence North 52° 00’ 00" West, 2.50 feet; Thence North 38° 00’ 00" East, 221.82 feet; EXHI BIT B (I of 3) Thence South 52° 00’ O0" East, A.P.NO’. 127-53-15 PREPARE BY: J. KIEHL CHECKED BY: J. BOURQUIN APPROVED BY: J. REMLEY DATE: JULY 13, 1992 85.00 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ 00" West, 20.00 feet; Thence North 52° 00" 00" West, 65.00 feet; Thence South 38° 00’ O0" 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 Southeastgrly of the Northwesterly line of the above described parcel. END OF DESCRIPTION JAY F_ EXHIBIT B 2 of 3 .r,_ .50’- I S 57." 00" 00" F. 12~. 36 ¯ JAY F_ AREA TO BE :!r -E° M[DDLEPfELD DRIVE ’;PMEP ¯ ACIL[ I( ." _ :F~F:.:I:, ROAD EXHIBIT B 3of3 l~q,~., :: ,’" I(’;,I, RECEIVED TO: Members of the Palo Alto Planning Commission cc: Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official FROM: Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Polo Alto 94306, 326-6359 RE: Appeals of Zoning Administrator approval of 96-UP-I at 3009 Middlefield Road, Winter Lodge as applicant; January 29, 1997 Hearing before the Planning Commission, continued from 11/13 and 11/20 1996 and continued again to April 30, 1997. DATE: January 30, 1997 ~ A key point at the January 29 hearing seems to have been missed by most of the people attending. This point is that Mr. J. Pack, the acoustical consultant for the Winter Lodge, conceded that Dr. Salmon’s acoustical analysis (conducted for the neighbors) is correct and is in accord with the Polo Alto Noise Ordinance. What Mr. Pack would like is far the City ta disregard this fact and use a criterion which, although not in compliance with the noise ordinance, would present lower sound levels for the noise disturbance of ball hits. Mr. Jack Morton, representing Community Skating, Inc., was correct in questioning what the purpose would be in hiring still a third consultant. Since the two sound experts agree that repetitive peak levels are appropriate for tennis playing, the sound analysis is no longer in question. The question is whether or not the City will uphold its own noise ordinance and .comprehensive plan or not. This is a legal question, which a sound engineer cannot answer for the Planning Commission. A second point is that Mr. Pack stated, and some Commissioners seemed to accept as correct, that all sounds would be illegal by the repetitive peak criterion: children playing, dogs barking, sneezing, etc. This is a red herring. The fact is that the Polo Alto Noise Ordinance, JAN 1 1997 Department of Planhing and Comtnunity Environment Public Property section 9.10.050 (page 907 of the Municipal Code), covers only machine noises and devices I that is, mechanicall, not human or animal noises! It states that in determining if the noise is illegal, either a "maximum continuous" or a "repetitive peak" level is considered, appropriate to the type of noise. Maximum continuous is used for steady, constant noises such as motors and the noise levels are averaged over time. Repetitive peak is used for noises which are repetitive but irregular in time interval and so brief that the ear is "startled." These noise levels are higher as they are not averaged over time but taken as measured. Both criteria are measurements of sound level above the ambient sound levels. Using the repetitive peak criterion for tennis noises in this particular case does no~t change in any way the manner in which other noise disturbances have been handled all along. In the case of the proposed tennis facilities, we are not discussing an occasional peak sound, occurring now and then. We are talking about plans to have these high peak sounds repeating over and aver as much as 12’ hours a day without, cease, from 5 tennis courts at once, 7 days a week all year round. We are talking about individuals playing tennis and group lessons and, additionally, Tennis Club league play plus tournaments scheduled to last whole weekends. This high intensity use (when the City Council directed low intensity use for the site) will be unremitting, allowing the residents on three sides of the site no respite. The Comprehensive Report states that above 55 decibels, human health and well being is. adversely affected. We are talking about decibel levels well beyond that level and occurring from 8 am till sunset every 2 day of the year, when it isn’t raining too hard. This is manyfold the use of the farmer Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Club. I lived here, on the other side of Matadero Creek from the tennis site, when the Club was in existence. We found it impossible to sleep once tennis play began early in the morning. At that time I worked full time and was only disturbed on weekends and holidays. Otherwise I would have not bought the house I was leasing but would have had to move away. In addition to the noise disturbing sleep and rest, I could not use my backyard during the summer. Not only was the noise (with the addition of very intrusive voice noise, not covered under the noise ordinance) too great to allow normal conversation in my backyard, but I was afraid of the balls coming over the wall. They came over frequently and with enough force to strike houses many feet away from the property line, so that I feared being hit. I was taking tennis lessons and never had to buy balls, because I could collect them in my yard like picking fruit from a prolific tree. Other neighbors have similar collections of balls which came over their back fences. The new proposed Use is far more intensive and these old problems would be magnified manyfold. Those who say the neighbors are being intolerant and the noise isn’t that bad have not had our experiences. These consist of major disruptions and threats to our well being, not simply minor or occasional annoyances. This controversy cannot be solved by compromise or mediation. The only solution, suggested by Dr. Salmon, is to completely enclose the tennis facility within a building. Sound walls along the property lines Will not bring the noise levels into compliance with the law. 3 Thinking of alternative uses for this site, I would like to point out that the Midtown Revitalization plan calls for the removal of the community gardens behind the Co-op and Baskin Robbins. The tennis site might be the ideal place for reestablishing these wonderful gardens along with creating a small community park. 4 TO: Members of the Palo Alto City Council FROM: Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Polo Alto 94306, 326-6359 RE: Appeals of Zoning Administrator approval of 96-UP-I at 3009 Middlefield Road, Winter Lodge as applicant; January 29, 1997 Hearing before the Planning Commission, continued from 11/13 and 11120 1996 and continued again to April 30, 1997. DATE: January 30, 1997 A key point at the January 29 hearing seems to have been missed by most of the people attending. This point .is that Mr. J. Pack, the acoustical consultant for the Winter Lodge, conced~ that Dr. Salmon’s acoustical analysis (conducted for the neighbors) is correct and is in accord with the Polo Alto Noise Ordinance. What Mr. Pack would like is for the City to disregard this fact and use a criterion which, although not in compliance with the noise ordinance, would present lower sound levels for the noise disturbance of ball hits. Mr. Jack Morton, representing Community Skating, Inc., was correct in questioning what the purpose would be in hiring still a third consultant. Since the two sound experts agree that repetitive peak levels are appropriate for tennis playing, the sound analysis is no longer in question. The question is whether or not the City will uphold its own noise ordinance and comprehensive plan or not. This is a legal question, which a sound engineer cannot answer for the Planning Commission. A second point is that Mr. Pack stated, and some Commissioners seemed to accept as correct, that all sounds’ would be illegal by the repetitive peak criterion: childrenplaying, dogs .barking, sneezing, etc. This is a red herring. The fact is that the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Public Property section 9.10.050 ,(page 907 of the Municipal Code), covers only machine noises and devices ~ that is, mechanical~ not human or animal noises! It states that in determining if the noise is illegal, either a "maximum continuous" or a "repetitive peak" level is considered, appropriate to the type of noise. Maximum continuous is used for steady, constant noises such as motors and the noise levels are averaged over time. Repetitive peak is used for noises which are repetitive but irregular in time interval and so brief that the ear is "startled." These noise levels are higher as they are not averaged over time but taken as measured. Both criteria are measurements of sound level above the ambient sound levels. Using the repetitive peak criterion for tennis noises in this particular case does not change in any way the manner in which other noise disturbances have been handled all along. In the case of the proposed tennis facilities, we are not discussing an occasional peak sound, occurring now and then. We are talking about plans to have these high peak sounds repeating over and over as much as 12 hours a day without cease, from 5 tennis courts at once, 7 days a week all year round. We are talking about individuals playing tennis and grouP lessons and, additionally, Tennis Club league play plus tournaments scheduled to last whole weekends. This high intensity use (when the City Council directed low intensity use for the site) will be unremitting, allowing the residents on three sides of the site no respite. The Comprehensive Report states that above 55 decibels, human health and well being is adversely affected. We are talking about decibel levels well beyond that level and occurring from 8 am till sunset every day of the year, when it isn’t raining too hard. This is manyfold the use of the former Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis Club. 2 I lived here, on the other side of Matadero Creek from the tennis site, when the Club was in existence. We found it impossible to sleep once tennis play began early in the morning. At that time I worked full time and was only disturbed on weekends and holidays. Otherwise I would have not bought the house I was leasing but would have. had to move away. In addition to the noise disturbing sleep and rest, I could not use my backyard during the summer. Not only was the noise (with the addition of very intrusive voice noise, not covered under the noise ordinance) too great to allow normal conversation in my backyard, but I was afraid of the balls coming over the wail. They came over frequently and with enough force to strike houses many feet away from the property line, so that I feared being hit. I was taking tennis lessons and never had to buy balls, because I could collect them in my yard like picking fruit from a prolific tree. Other neighbors have similar collections of balls which came over their back fences. The new proposed use is far more intensive and these old problems would be magnified manyfold. Those who say the neighbors are being if)tolerant and the noise isn’t that bad have not had our experiences. These consist of major disruptions and threats to our well being, not simply minor or occasional annoyances. This .controversy cannot be solved by compromise or mediation. The only solution, suggested by Dr. Salmon, is to completely enclose the tennis facility within a building. Sound walls along the property lines will not bring the noise levels into compliance with the law. Thinking of alternative uses for this site, I would like to point out that the Midtown Revitalization plan calls for the removal of the community gardens behind the Co-op and Baskin Robbins. The tennis 3 site might be the ideal place for reestablishing these wonderful gardens along with creating a small community park. 4 To: ~rom: Planning Commission City of Palo Alto Wei Wang 3054 Price Ct. ’ Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel: 415 - 856 - 0106 E-mail: 75240.631@compuserve.com When the rain storm hit the Bay area in the beginning of Jannary, niI telephone was down from the 2rid of January. On the 3rd, I walked to WinterLodge to nse their pnblic phone to call the telephone company. I was put on hold by Pacific Bell for a long time, so when I hung up, the manager of WinterLodge came over and told me the telephone is for their customers only. The uext morning when the clerk told me the same thing, 1 asked to speak to the manager. When I explained to her that my telephone was broken, she said I can only make a quick call when there is no one waiting but frotn then on I am not allowed to walk or park my car ou WinterLodge’s property which inchldes not only the ice skating ring but also the 2.43 acre laud planned for the tennis conrts, the picnic area, the pnblic restroom and the bleachers. Her unreasonable demand reminds me of the many things 1 heard my neighbors saying about WinterLodge such as WinterLodge bnilt a wall which is supposed to block some noise on the east side of the ice skating~ring bnt not only was it never finished but also the finished portion was never maintained to be effective as a sonnd barrier. My neighbor on Stern St. also told me that WinterLodge let water leak to her street for four contiuuous nionths. WinterLodge’s uasty attitude toward its neighbors seems to become worse as time goes by. Now it made the city of Palo Alto grant them a permit to pitt uot only one but two tennis courts 20 feet fi’om my and my neighbors’ properties with a year round schednle for leagne plays, tennis tournaments and group lessons for kids besides prohibiting me from setting my feet ou city land. With this letter, I am enclosing a soulld report prepared by Dr. Salmon on the sound levels measured both from my property line and my rear wall of the house for the two tennis courts that are close to me and a letter from Dr. Salmon ou his tneeting with the sonnd engineer from WinterLodge. I ant also enclosing a copy of the Comprehensive Plait of City of Palo Alto on uoise level above 55 dBA. Siucerely, cc: Lisa Grote Nancy Lytle and Hellyer Canyon in San Jose, that could be used after the present local sites are closed. The Pale Alto Baylands landfall will not be available after the early 1990s. Noise The Noise Problem Noise is a l~art of modern society-noiSe from motorized labor.saving devices, transportation vehicles, and recreation "" " :~-CO}/I~REHEN$IVE PLAN Studies have shown that noise not only may prever~t"sleep but may seriously disturb the quality of sleep without fully awakening the sleeper. Noise levels over 55 dBA disrupt all types of normal listening activities. Noise also causes such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance, stress, and tension. If these effects are continued, they can cause very serious emotional and psychological problems. The noise envi- ronment is often not blamed directly for these reactions if devices. People can tolerate or ignore a certain amount.of noise but adverse effects including outright hearing pairment and other dangers to health are present in many exposures to noise. The objective of this section of the Plan and Pale Alto’s continuing Noise Control Program is to reduce noise which affects humans adversely. The-Effects of Noise on People The problem of controlling noise is difficult because it af- fects each individual in a different way. People ~1o not hear sounds alike or react to them in the same way. Each person’s reaction to no.~ depends on characteristics of the noise itself-the loudness, duration, and frequency con~ent, for example. The effect of noise on people is also deter- mined by the listener and the situation. The effect of noise levels above 80 dBA can range from a temporary loss of ability to hear quiet sounds up to pemaa- nent and irreversible loss of.normal hearing. Fortunately, few exposures to noise levels causing permanent hearing damage 6ccur in Pale Alto. However, some problems may occur for those who attend loud musi- cal recreational events or for persons whose jobs involve high noise levels. Occupational noise is regulated by state and federal legislation. Noise may also disrupt activities such as sleep, conver- sation, reading, listening to records, or watching television. Major sources of traffic nbise are streets with high volumes, high speed, a large number of traffic controls or many trucks, buses, and other loud vehicles. Southern Pacific trains are another major source of noise. During peak traffic periods, the noise levels in parentheses are generally exceeded 10 per cent of the time at 50 feet from the traffic. Noise levels of’ 50 to 60 dBA are typical in neighborhoods not subject to heavy traffic. How-Loud Is Loud? Relative Intensity Sound Level of sound in dBA 1,000,000,000,000 Auto horn (3’). 4-engine jet (100’)120 100,000,000,000 Rock music inside nightclub 110 10,000,000,000 ’Motorcycle without muffler accelerating. Jackhammer (25’)100 1,000,000,000 Stock motorcycle accelerating (25’)90 100,000,000 Power lawn mower (20’),80 I 0;000,000 Steady urban traffic (25’)70 1,000,000 Normal conversation (3’)60 100,000 Daytime street, no nearby traffic 50 10,000 Quiet office. Quiet neighborhood 40 1,000 Inside quiet home. Soft whisper (10’)30 100 Movie or recording studio 20 10 Barely audible sound 10 1 Threshold of hearing 0 A decibel (dBA) is a unit of measurement indicating the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness although the noise is actually ten times more intense. For example, a power lawn mower (80 dBA) seems twice as loud as steady urban traffic (70 dBA). VINCENT SALMON, P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street Menlo Park, CA 9~025-5705 (415) 323-.1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants ret, ret, N, ret. ^L to continue 9~.~.~12-1 6 .~’~.~.~. r~SOUND’WALL HEIGHTS TO MITIGATE T, RENNIS BALL HIT SOUNDS:..~":’" Prepared-for:Ms. Wei Wang 3054 Price Court Pal Alto CA 94303 Property:Rear of home facing tennis courts VS Job 770 SOUND WALL HEIGHTS TO MITIGATE TENNIS BALL HIT SOUNDS INTRODUCTION This report provides calculations of sound wall heights to reduce the peak sound levels of tennis ball hit’s from the courts nearest to your property. The limiting sound levels are 56 dBA, as noted in the Pack report of April 18, 1996; and the 65 dBA limit noted in the Noise Element of. the General Plan of the City of Palo Alto. As per Fig. 1 of the Pack report, your property faces the end of the fifith court and the side of the fourth. T.he calculations are for the fifth court;, for the fourth court location the levels will be 4 decibels greater, and the required sound wall heights greater. Thus the calculations are for the best case conditions of minimum noise. The ball hit sound levels used in this report are derived from my measured values, and are the minimum and maximum levels that would appear at your property line or at the rear wall of your house. The distances used are those you gave me, 20 feet from rear wall to property line, and 20 feet from property line (also sound wall location) to the boundaries of the nearest courts. The primary measured peak sound level ’data used in the calculations are from my report of November 7 1996. The sound wall height calculation procedure used in this report is that described in Chapter 3 of the Harris "Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", third edition, 1991, McGraw-Hill. A simple path-length-difference program enabled calculations for the several combinations of parameters that are shown in Table 2. The maximum sound level reduction (the insertion’ loss, the I L) of the sound wall is given by Equation 3.11 of the Harris reference: IL : 10 log (3 + 10 N) o where N is the Fresnel number, the ratio of path difference to half-wavelength. See my report of November 7 1996 for details. For a given sound level reduction required, the corresponding Fresnel number can be obtained by solving the equation for N. RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS Table 1 gives the range (minimum and maximum) peak sound levels at your property line and at the rear wall of your house. Also in the Table are the sound level reductions needed to meet the 56 dBA and 65 dBA limits for the maximum,.~and minimum ball hit peak sound levels. These maximum and minimum measured peak,. I~s.. differ by 15 decibels. "~ TABLE 1 PROPERTY PEAK LEVELS AND REDUCTIONS REQUIRED MIN HIT MAX HIT Peak sound levels at property line Peak sound levels at rear wall of house 72 87 69 84 Reductions to meet 56 dBA limit at rear of house 13 Reductions to meet 65 dBA limit at rear of house 4 28 19 The data in Table 1 were then used tc~ calculate Table 2, the minimum sound wall heights to meet the limiting sound levels. The sound wall is assumed to be very close to your property line. To be effective on your property, the lateral extent of the sound wall must extend beyond the side boundaries of your prope, .r~y.. by at least two sound wall heights on each side. : ".~. . The sound wall heights will depend on what combination of ball hit height (4 feet or 9 feet, per my report), ball hit intensities (see Table 1) and limiting sound levels chosen. Table 2 presents the results for the eight combinations used, An "x" indicates the parameter chosen for each column of combinations. The heigl~t at the rear ~Tall of your house is taken as 9 feet, eaves height. This is to protect the essential acousticaliy weak wall elements, the rear windows. TABLE 2 SOUND WALL HEIGHTS TO MEET SOUND LEVEL LIMITS AT REAR WALL OF HOUSE Ball hit .at 4 ft X x Ba’ll hit at 9 ft X X X" Minimum ball hit X X Maximum ball hit X X X X 56 dBA level limit X X "X 65 dBA level limit X X X X Reduction required 13 13 28 28 4 4 19 19 Min sound wall, ft’17 19 90 92 8* ¯9* 29 31 The wall¯ heights with an * are the grazing heights, the height of a wall which will just touch a line drawn from the ball hit location to the eaves of your house. Such a wall provides at least a 5 decibel reduction. A 6-foot wall would provide less reduction." The calculation procedure fails when a sound level reduction of more than 20 decibels is required, but is shown here to indicate the difficulty in meeting the sound level limits. Note that several combinations give completely impracticable heights for the sound walls. Respectfully submitted, Vincent Salmon, P. E. 770R1C2.6D~ = VINCENT SALMON, P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street, Menl’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 El lsworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr. Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.~de at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 yearsold; She was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same peak sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 dBA. "Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequency of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1’ kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND. FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS Hr.dB 330 Hz 1000 HZ (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4..19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are stilltoo high to be practicable, Respectfully submitted, 759R2.6DQ December 3 I, 1996 Ms. Nancy Maddox Lytle Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Lytle: ., R ~-" E i VED Depar~rnem ot Vlanning and Community Environment With reference to our appeal of Application No. 96-UP71 concerning 3009 Middlefield Road: As you are aware, at the November 20th hearing the Planning Commission requested that the two engineers meet to try to establish Some resolution of the differing sets of data so far presented. This was accomplished December 19th and I have included a copy of Dr. Salmon’s report to me concerning this meeting. Basically, the meeting confirmed the appellant’s data regarding tennis ball hits already submitted in Dr. Salmon’s report dated November 7, 1996. Since the Planning commission requested these results I am asking that you pass along the enclosed copies to the Commission members with a copy for yourself and Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote. I would ask that with confirmation of the large Noise Ordinance exceedences at our property line, as explained in Dr. Salmon’s report, that the City of Palo Alto reevaluate its position regarding this issue before the Planning Commission. In particular, it is clear the proposed tennis facility will hourly violate both the Municipal Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10, and the Comprehensive Plan under Policy 1 I. Further it is impracticable to build a wall which will protect us from this noise. Similar remarks apply to the properties at Price Court, as Dr. Salmon’s recent additional report for Mrs. Wang demonstrates. My own calculations of the expected noise levels at the condominium property line, using 100 feet distance from the fifth court, also indicates exceedences over both the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, although no wall has been offered to protect the appellants on the second floor. While I do not know how CSI will react to the results enclosed, I believe the City of Palo Alto has an obligation out of fairness to the neighbors, to correct some of the most important errors in the Published Zoning Decision on Applica.tion No. 96-UP-I. In particul6ro Finding #I is incorrect in stating "The noise analysis submitted with the application verifies that with mitigation as attached below, the noise impact will be within allowable limits." Finding #2 is also incorrect in stating that "The project meets all parking, landscaping and noise requirements of the Municipal Code and ..... " In addition, the current Staff Report to the Planning Commission still recommends denying all our appeals based on the incorrect noise analysis. I request that the new information be made part of a revised recommendation. I also request that if you allow CSI to do another sound study or substantially revise its plans, that you give the appellants sufficient notice so that we can adequately review these plans and prepare our ¯ remarks. If we are presented with an entirely new set of data or revised reports we may require the same time interval the Planning Commission has extended to the Applicant. In regard to endless hearings and expert testimony required, we are at a substantial disadvantage in opposing an $800°000 nonprofit corporation. I believe that under all the existin~I conditions a recommendation to uphold oUr appeal is now the only fair resolution of this problem. ~’~ ’~ JoI~n K. Abraham ~ 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California 94306 Ph: 415-326-6359 VINCENT SALMON, P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street, Menl’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 96-12-26 Dear Dr. Abraham: This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m,~ade at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a coup-t, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was .rega.rded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same pea.k sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 dBA. ’Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc, y of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1 kHz, above the. 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I ¯ have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS’ ,Ht.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound .wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz.spectrum peak,.they are stilltoo. high to be practicable. Respectfully submitted, ,759R2.6DQ VINCENT SALMON~ P.E,ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT .765 Hobart Street, Ment’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 - Dear Dr. Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.@de at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a cou~t, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regarded as highly .promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon. agreed in measuring the same peak sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 d BA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1 kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound .wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-1~-07. Accordingly I ¯ have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS’ Hr.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It¯is seen that although the. required sound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are still too high to be practioable. Respectfully submitted, 759R2.6DQ VINCENT SALMON1 P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 HobaFt Street, Menl’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr," John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Pa]o Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr. Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements .of tennis ball hits m.,a.de at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack~ Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. .Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same peak sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 dBA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of themaximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1 kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If, so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I ¯ have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HE[GHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN, WALL HIT RED,HEIGHTS’ Ht.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 9 26 80 49 It isseen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz. spectrum peak, they are stilltoo high to be practicable. Respectfully submitted, 759R2,6DQ VINCENT SALMON~ P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart 8treat, Menl’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoust.ica] Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr. Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.~de at winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a cout-t, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same pea.k sound level~; the range wa~s about 70 to 87 dBA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1. kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I ¯ have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS-FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIEN. WALL HIT RED.HE ]~GHTS ’ Hr.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are stilltoo high to be practicable. , Respect f ul l y. submi tted, 759R2.6DQ VINCENT SALMON, P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street, Men]’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr. Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the results of comparative .peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.Ade at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack, Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities, Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was rega.rded as highly promising by the tennis pro. ’ Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same peak sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 dBA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest, a maximum near 1 kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I .estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I ¯ have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL .RQD,MIN, WALL HIT RED,HEIGHTS Ht,dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 ~9 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the required sound wall heights are appreciably lower, at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are still too high to be. practicable, Respectfully submitted, /,, -)" ,~ - ¯ /;759R2,6DQ ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT oVINCENT SALMON, P.E. 765 Hobart Street, Men]’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consu]tants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 E]]sworth Place Pa]o Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr..Abraham: 96-1 2-26 .This note reports the results of comparative peak., noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.~de at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet .from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the .same pea.k sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 d BA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of the maximum in th$ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1 kHz, above ’the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I ¯ have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT-330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS Hr.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are stilltoo high to be practicable. Respectfu]’ly submitted, 759R2.6DQ. .VINCENT SALMON, P.E.-ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street., Men]’o Park, ,CA 94025-5705 (415) 3.23-1777 Member, N.at.ional Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 E11sworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 96-12-26 Dear Dr. Abraham: This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements .of ten.n,is ball hits m.Ade at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with. Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet,.from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities.. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14. years old; she was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same pea.k sound levels; the range was ¯ about 70 to 87 dBA. ’Pack also made some’ preliminary measurementg to estimate the frequenc, y of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a.maximum near 1. kHz,.above the 330 Hz I. estimated. If so, this higher f.requency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I ¯have. recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall-heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR .REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT. BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT .AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS Ht.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 !19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, .they are stilltoo high to be practicable. Respectfully submitted, 759R2.6DQ o VINCENT SALMON, P,E,ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street, Men.l’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 E11sworth Place Pa]o Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr, Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the .results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.~de at Winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous ’measUrements were made. 40 feet from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls ser~/ed by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same pea.k sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 d BA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequency of the maximum in th~ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1" kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I .have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT. HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS’ Hr.dB 330 HZ 1000 "Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 .19 15 9 " 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the required sound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are still too high to be practicable. Respectfu]ly submitted, 759R2.6DQ VINCENT SALMON, P,E,ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT 765 Hobart Street, Menl"o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr, John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto CA 94306 96-12-26 Dear Dr, Abraham: This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m..a.de at winter Lodge, courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous" measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a court, using precision sound level meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regarded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the Same pea.k sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 dBA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of the maximum in th$ ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1 kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I -have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MIN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS Ht,dB 330 HZ 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are stilltoo high to be practicable. Respectfully submitted, 759R2,6DQ VINCENT SALMON, P.E.ACOUSTICAL CONSUL~N~ 765 Hobart Street, Menl’o Park, CA 94025-5705 (415) 323-1777 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants Dr. John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place .Palo Alto CA 94306 Dear Dr. Abraham: 96-12-26 This note reports the results of comparative peak noise measurements of tennis ball hits m.~ade at winter Lodge courts on 19 December 1996 with Jeffrey Pack. Simultaneous measurements were made 40 feet from the side of a court, using precision sound level .meters of equal capabilities. Balls served by the Lodge tennis pro were hit chiefly by a young lady who seemed to be 12 to 14 years old; she was regar.ded as highly promising by the tennis pro. Both Pack and Salmon agreed in measuring the same pea.k sound level~; the range was about 70 to 87 dBA. Pack also made some preliminary measurement~ to estimate the frequenc.y of the maximum in thg ball hit spectrum. His results suggest a maximum near 1 kHz, above the 330 Hz I estimated. If so, this higher frequency means that sound wall heights needed would be less.than I estimated in my report of 96-11-07. Accordingly I -have recalculatedthe needed minimum sound wall heights, shown in.the Table below. WALL HEIGHTS FOR REQUIRED SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS AT BALL HIT HEIGHTS OF 4 FT AND 9 FT AND FOR SPECTRUM NAXIMA AT 330 AND 1000 Hz BALL RQD.MTN. WALL HIT RED.HEIGHTS ’ Hr.dB 330 Hz 1000 Hz (4 5 6 6) 4 11 15 11 4 19 35 22 4 26 80 45 (9 0 6 6) 9 11 19 15 9 19 39 26 .9 26 80 49 It is seen that although the requiredsound wall heights are appreciably lower at for the 1 kHz spectrum peak, they are stillt~o high to be practicable, Respectfully submitted, 759R2.6DQ September 3, 1996 Mayor Lani Wheeler City of Pale Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto, CA 94303 SEP 6 19~B 736 EllSLL’Orth Place Pale Alto, C:A 94306 \. BE: The. use permit for the former Chuck Thompson Swim/Tennis site at 3009 F,~iddlefield Road, Application No. 96-UP-I Dear Mayor Wheeler: "A citizen’s right to have a tolerable place to live must take precedence ever a citizen’s right to recreate." This is taken from the appeal letter (p. 7 #7) from the Hiddiefield Road Homeowners’ Association, dated August 22, 1998. The letter goes on to sag "People cannot pick up and readily move, while people can find other places to play, especially in this case where there are 61 public tennis courts and lots of parks for picnic activity." This point is one the other two appeal letters (from myself and John Abraham and from Wei Wang) have also tried to make. Since we wrote our appeal letters, further information has come to my attention and that is what this letter is about - new information, new to me at least. John and I’ visited St. Mark’s Church on Colorado and the new e~panded YMCA on Ross Road and looked at their sound walls. We also visited the Planning Commission and obtained copies of some documentation, regarding the YHCA. We contrasted the conditions placed on the YHCA use permit with those placed on the Winter Lodge’s for the new, expanded tennis facilities at 3005 Middlefield Road. The contrast is amazing and we are ..shocked that residents of the two neighborhoods should be treated so differently. Landscapinq The only physical condition added to the tennis use permit for the "benefit" of .those residents [vho live on Eilsworth is not one we asked for and is, in fact, of no benefit: the line of fir trees along the creek. I asked Lisa Grote on the phone why this condition was added and was told that it was for aesthetic effect. Since we all have tall fences, which block out any view of the tennis courts, such a visual screen is not needed. Lisa said that, in 5 or 6 gears, when the trees haLle grown, the mitigation oi" noise a1"forded bg them LVOUld be "minimal, at best." I haLJe heard that for trees to have a muffling affect on noise., there would need to be a dense screen of large (48" box) trees. $omuchfor this protective condition. Condition 5.2 of the YMCFI use permit (p. 6) states that "R dense [my emphasis] landscaped buffer, consisting of a combination of trees and shrubs, shall be provided along the rear and side property iines...Replacement trees shall be a mi~ of mostly five and fifteen gallon size, with some 2,i inch box size also included." Note that Zoning Code Section 18.32.070, Special requirements in the PF public facilities district, subsection (a) (3) (page .1859 of the Municipal Code) does require a ten foot wide landscaped "yard" betLueen a creek and the property line. EIIstvorth Place is just across Matadero Creek from four tennis courts. Two of these are directly behind mg back yard, which should explain mg interest in this matter. Neighborhood Liaison The other "protection" in the Winter Lodge use permit is that a phone number be available for neighbors to call in case of a problem. This is in sharp contrast to the "Managers on Duty" of the YMCA, who Luill carry pagers and be available 24 hours a day to the neighbors (memo from Dan Logan~ director of the YMCA to Neighbors, dated April 16, 1995). Mr. Logan has even appointed a back-up to Managers on-Duty. The .YMCA is also wiiliny to change program times and locations to avoid disturbing neighbors’ sleep and reduce off site parking and traffic problems. At the zoning hearings, the Winter Lodge balked at even making a phone number available for neighbors to use when problems arise during times the Lodge is closed. We were told to "call the police." The contrast between the two facilities in their willingness to be a good neighbor isevident. The City isn’t helping in our case, although it did facilitate the good neighborliness of the YMCA. (See Condition 1.1 of the YMCA use permit 90-UP-38:3412 Ross Road.) This condition does not state simply that a phone number be made available, but that "The applicant shall appoint a neighborhood liaison who may be contacted by neighbors of the project site during all hours of operation and during special events to voice complaints about noise violations, parking concerns or any other disturbances originating at the YMCR facility .... The liaison shall be provided .the authority to correct any violation...and to make every 2 effort to avoid disturbances to the neighborliness! Sound Barriers neighborhood." This is The sound wa!ls at St. I~lark’s and at the YMCR are at least 7 feet tall and made of brick (masonry). Besides being solid, they are also attractive. Rt the YMCFI on Ross Road, all three sides of the property bordered by homes are surrounded by a dark red brick LuaII, 7 or 8 feet high, unbroken and continuous, to protect neighbors. (90-UP-38, 93- ARB-51,93-EIA-51) The use permit states (p. 51 "R sound barrier shall be constructed along the full length of the northerly, westerly and southerly property lines...shall be constructed to a height of 7 feet, unless a majority of property owners on any boundary indicate in Lvriting that 8 feet is preferred, and of a concrete or masonry material...with a minimum surface weight of 3 Ibs. per square foot, and shall have no cracks or gaps in or at its base. The noise barrier shall be- maintained in 9earl aesthetic condition and in such a manner as to not reduce its sound attenuatin~ properties." (my emphasis) When ~he Winter Lodge e~.panded, one of the condilions was.to build a 8 foot wooden fence next to the condominiums. Later, this was amended and the fence was shortened down to 5 feet. It was not maintained. It has never served as a sound b~ffer, so the residents didn’t think .it worth making a fuss over. The wall is shoddy, and anything but solid. You can see the holes between planks. Now the use permit for the expanded tennis facilities requires a wooden fence at the north boundary. R wood fence, no matter how tall, is not an acoustically effective sound barrier; it does no good at all if it does not meet the requirements. Edward Pack, who did the sound study for the Winter Lodge as client, recommended "...it (the sound barrier at the Price Court boundary) must be air-tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other openings, and provide for long-term durability...must have a minimum surface weight of 2.5 Ibs. per sq. ft. If a wood fence is used, homogeneous sheet .materials are preferable over conventional wood fencing as the latter has a tendency to warp and form openings with age .... " (.p. 5). This warping is exactly what happened to the wood fence along the condominiums. (The tennis use permit says nothin~ about the new B foot fence supposedly to be built along the condominiums.) It seems apparent to me that the Winter Lodge did not comply with the condition regarding the. original wood fence at the condominiums, nor maintain what was built. Without being required to do better bg the City, it will build similar shoddy new fences, with no perceptible sound bu1~ter e.f1~ect, at ~he north bount~ary and eastern boundarU. Nolo tha~ no barrier is being required along the creek! Cheap and ineffective wooden fences are being accepted as sound barriers at the tennis courts and Winter Lodge, while the YMCA has masonry walls on three sides! The tennis courts are an open facility which generates, even with onl~j four courts in use,= much higher noise leL, els to the neighborhood than the enclosed YMCA. Where is the fairness or even rationale here? lllhy didn’t the use permit for the tennis facility include a condition tha~ masonry sound wails be constructed on three sides of the tennis facilities to protect al__~l the neighbors? This was not discussed in the hearings. The neighbors might have been ignorant of this possibility; surely the zoning administrator knew about the YMCA. Noise levels Here is another contrast betLveen the two use permits. At theWinter Lodge and Tennis facilities, the noise limit is 56 dBA at the property lir:es. Condition =1.3 of the YMCA u’se permit (p. 5 Up-90-39, 11/25/91) states "all mechanical equipment associated with the facility shall be designed and specified so that when all mechanical equipment, is operating, noise levels, do not exceed 40 dl~A at the propertt~ lines .... " And Condition 4.6.prohibits all outdoor amplified sound. The only noise the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance covers is mechanical noises, and Mr. Pack’s sound study addresses the mechanical noises of tennis rackets hitting balls and "squeaking shoes". Why the difference in dBA levels allowed and is this fair? And why are voice noises a consideration at the YMCA and not the at the Winter Lodge? In an open facility, such as the tennis club, voice noise has a considerable impact on nearby neighbors. The Winter Lodge use permit fails to address the quality of life for residents: the impact of voice noise is ignored as though it were not a factor; only average mechanical noises were considered in judging if the noise ordinance would be violated, whereas it’s the peak noises we will have to live with (read John Abraham’s portion of our" appeal letter); and absolutely no. noise .mitigation was proposed for the western boundary, even though residents of Ellsworth Placeare closest of all the neighbors to four of the tennis courts. l~eicjhborhood Relations Neighborhood me:etings are a condition of the use permit for the YMCA. "The applicant shall schedule regular meetings with the neighborhood, a minimum of one every six months, to review the status of compliance with the terms of the use permi.t, the status of noise, and disturbance control and the status of neighborhood relations." (Conditions: General 1.2). lna memo from the director Dan Logan to the neighbors of the ?MCR, dated April 16, 1996, he states, to improue the tone of these neighborhood meetings, "we think it would be a good idea to bring in a facilitator who can help us communicate with one another..." ! think the City should make similar neighborhood meetings a condition of the Winter Lodge use permit and require the applicant to prouide a neutral facilitator. The presence of City representa.tiues at these meetings would be a good idea also; there have been City staff at the YMCA meetings. Neighborhood relations with the Winter Lodge are now nonexistent. The City Council requested The Winter Lodge directors to confer with the neighbors in planning, the uses of this site. They did not. And there is no condition in the use permit requiring this. With their noncompliance regarding the sound fence at the condos and negative response to noise complaints from neighbors, I can state confidently that there exists no desire on the part of the applicant to confer with the neighbors. This is understandable, perhaps, since there is an inherent conflict in goals which hardly permit cooperation:.the Winter Lodge wishes to maximize the use of the site and the neighbors wish to preserve the tranquility of their homes. We much prefer the "low intensity" use the Council had mandated at its public hearings to the schedule of use we heard about at the zoning hearings (see below). Tennis Facility Schedule of Use Key entry players and group lessons for children: 8 am till dark .Monday through Saturday; 9 am till dark on Sunday (holidays not mentioned) -.every day, all year round as weatherpermits. ! In addition, there is the schedule of the Polo Alto Tennis Club: Leat!_ue Pla_~, all courts in use at once, both singles and doubles play, 6-8 pm four days per week, from April through July and starting again in the fall from October through February or March, 5 as much as ID monlhs out of the year. [luring weekday or Saturday afternoons; plus tournaments once per month for an entire weekend from 8 am until 3 or 4 pro, for 5 months. Role of the City in Monitoring The City staff also prepares a Condition Monitoring and Status Report on the YMCA annually, as required in the (condition 1.3), for the Planning Commission’s review. Operations use permit "The applicant shall fund preparation of a written condition monitoring and operations status report to be prepared annually. The Planning Division will administer preparation of the report by a land use consultant...the YMCA shall post funds covering the costs of report preparation .... The contents of the report shall include, at a minimum: documentation of neighbor complaints; status of compliance with all conditions of approval and the City Municipal Code; recommendations for any necessary code compliance efforts; and traffic counts on Ross Road and at the project driveways." In fact, the Y keeps a log of neighborhood complaints and Y responses. The .log includes even such minutiae as the Y removing a light bulb from an exterior light, and notifying people with car alarms to disarm them while their cars are at the Y. Feel free to share this letter with other members of the Council. If you or any of your colleagues are willing to meet with me and others from Ellsworth Place to discuss our problems, please let me know. Hy phone # is (day and evening) 326-6359. .~ .Natalie Fisher P.S. Since the Winter Lodge will have to subsidize the new tennis facilities, won’t this cause fees at the skating rink to rise? To: From: Date: Re: Planning Commission J. Alexandria Hayes 718 Ellsworth Place 11/20/96 Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-1 D&ar Planning Commissioners: I regret that a work conflict keeps me from presenting my concerns personally, therefore I have prepared this.written statement. As a member of the Mediation Task Force, I personally tend to be risk averse and .hold~to the general ~philosophy that the best solutions are derived when the disputing parties are able to formulate a mutually acceptable agreement. I also know that in reality, this rarely ever happens, if one or both of the .parties fails to make honest attempts to discuss the other’s concerns. In most cases, what keeps a resolution from becoming a reality, is the feeling that a party’s concerns are not being heard and validated by others. This does not mean that others must agree with the party’s position, but merely that they must not trivialize and ignore the other party’s concerns. Unfortunately, this has been the case throughout the planning of this project and is also evident in the way CSI has failed to address residents’ concerns .about.the operation of The Winter Lodge. At every public hearing, I hear representatives of CSI espouse how they are working with the neighbors on this project. Short of appearing at the hearings to defend their project and offering to work with neighbors, I have never been contacted, by a representative of CSI suggesting my input at a meeting between CSI and the neighboring property owners. I am not aware.of any meetings like this having taken place. It appears to be CSI’s position that .as long as the City is willing to back them, they have no need to go forward with any private discussions with the ’neighbors regarding this project. Perhaps they feel they’d get an earful about the Winter Lodge as well, as it does have many problems of its own. At the Zoning Administrator Hearing on August i, 1996, after again hearing how emphatically CSI wants to be a good neighbor, I made a request of Linda Jensen, Director of CSI, to. please check the angle of the lights shining.into their parking lot, as the lights shine all the way across the lot, over my fence and into my house (esp. my bedroom) and they remain on all night long. She assured me, she would see to it. To this day ~nothing has changed. I was interested to see that as a condition of the expansion of the YMCA (90-UP-38), there is..a requirement (condition 5.2) that forbids light spillage into neighboring properties and that "All lights which are highly visible from adjacent properties shall be turned off within 30 minutes, following closing..." These lights are so bright that I can clearly follow a tennis ball as it travels across the court, well past dusk. I believe these lights would encourage people to play longer than the required hours, especially in the fall when the days get shorter, and therefore need some conditions placed on them as well. This brings me to another point regarding lights and CSI’s attitude regarding this project. Although initially there was confusion about the courts being lit, it was quickly clarified by Council that there was never any intention of granting a proposal which c~lled for lit courts. Although the light standards remain and are functional, they have not been authorized for use in years. I was dismayed to hear last week’s comment by Jack Morton,. founding member of CSI, that the fifth court was allowed as a concession for not lighting the courts. The lighting of the courts was clearly never a part of the negotiation and Mr. Morton knows that from being present at the council meeting where this was discussed. Furthermore, Mr. Morton made a statement that the fifth court was not additional, that it is pre-existing. If there was a fifth courton the site, it was obliterated long ago, and it is shameless for him to, at this point, claim that the ~fifth court is not a substantial new use of the facility. Concerns about the fifth court were expressed early on by several council members and are part of the public record. Last week, Mr. Morton again made reference to the fact that if the fifth court were not granted, the project would be unfeasible. I am well aware of "hidden agendas" and feel this is a major point of contention which not been fully discussed in public hearings. At the council meeting on 5/1/95, Kay Carey spoke on behalf of PATC, and alluded to "preferred customer", status for tournaments and league play and a commitment by CSI to do this at a "special rate" for PATC. The substantial amount of time to be committed to these endeavors of PATC were not spelled out until the second Zoning Administrator Hearing on 8/1/96 (see attachment i0, beginning at the bottom of pg. 13). It appears evident that the main use of this facility would be as a private club for PATC members, of which there are hundreds, who are not necessarily Palo Alto residents. I am not a mathematician, but I~do question Ms. Carey’s rationale for a fifth court. If teams are playing doubles, and they count on sixteen people showing up, four people would be playing on each court and therefore only four courts would be needed for all sixteen to play simultaneously. This causes me to wonder, "what am I missing?" Could the proposed daily use be greater than they are letting on, or is the big thing, the tournaments that will go on all weekend long and invite spectators to participate as well? Since CSI and PATC already have a special arrangement, and CSI feels it cannot go forward with the project unless PATC gets what ’it wants (the fifth court, an outside food service area with electricity, outdoor restrooms, and bleachers for spectators), why should anyone believe that these courts will ever be open to the general public. When would people from the public be able to play, during their lunch hour? Whose going to be in charge of scheduling? Will it be first come, first served with the possibility that whenever I come to play I’m told that all the courts are already in use for an organized function? This is one of the problems I. ~find with the schedule at the Winter Lodge; although .they .are open to the public, the hours are often so limited, that it’s impractical to skate there. The majority of their, revenue is generated by private functions. o One of the Commissioners asked last week about the keyed entry. If members of PATC could play on.the courts without having to purchase a.key of their own, what would keep the use of the courts to a reasonable number of people. Jack Morton stated last week that the keys would not necessarily be limited~to I00 people and this is also stated in the minutes of the council meeting on 5/1/95 (see pg. 75-467 beginning Mr. Morton). Lisa Grote, on page six of her recommendations states "Staff believes that a low intensity use would be one. that accommodates a limited number of participants. The tennis facility qualifies as low intensity use because it will be. limited to i00 key-holders and will at most accommodate 20 players at a time if .all .courts are simultaneously filled with "doubles" teams." She obviously misses the point that theoretically only one key is necessary to allow access for an unlimited number, of individuals to the whole facility .and that if the only people who were at the facility, were there only to play their game, there~would be no need for areas where they could sit and have refreshments or a picnic. If I were to get a key, what would keep me from advertising ~my willingness to allow access to the facility. (maybe for a private tennis party) to anyone who desired it for a nominal fee? Would I even be able to get a key (excepting the major expense of~$100, which many couldn’t afford) and what would my $100 guarantee me? These concerns trouble me greatly, as a resident and taxpayer, who is being asked to stand by and allow city land (located in my backyard), to be used for a private tennis club of which I have no guarantee of access. My neighbors and I are not willing to give up city land this easily, and I do not believe .that this is what,the voters intended when they voted.for the land swap back in 1985. Regarding the noise, which has been~much trivilized by.proponents of the project, this is also a. major concern of the neighbors which needs to be addressed in a serious manner. While I am fairly tolerant of noise, as in the concern about noise is less troublesome to me, than the conversion of public land to private land, I do recognize that noise is a very subjective element and this is obviously why.objective standards have been set forth in the noise ordinance~ With my limited~understanding of the methods for collecting noise level data, it does appear to me that the methods used by Edward Pack Assoc. were less than of the highest quality and yet when many discrepancies were pointed outby John Abraham during the .Zoning Administrative Hearings, Ms. Grote dismissed.him as having no expertise in this area and continued to cling to.the.faulty findings of Pack Assoc. Mr. Abraham went to great personal expense to hire his own consultant who came back with a report which points out that there is no feasible way to mitigate the noise from the proposed use. Additionally, it troubles me that the general attitude of proponents of this project is that vocal sounds are insignificant. While they are not included in the noise ordinance, they are of major concern to many people and were well studied and documented in the case of the Y expansion. When Mr. Pack was asked about vocal sounds, he dismissed them as being hard to quantify and skid "what can you do about it?" Ms. Grote continually stated that human voices were not a consideration; why was the subject handled differently under Ms. Lytle with the Y’s project, an indoor facility no less. There are barking dog ordinances, aren’t these vocal sounds as opposed to mechanical. Why should a barking dog be anymore troublesome than a barking tennis coach or a screaming youngster? ~ I am the owner of a dog and he does bark, when his barking gets out of control (more than a few barks) I try to’put an end to it to the best of my ability, for the. comfort of my neighbors, not because I have to, but because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t believe most people who are out enjoying themselves, using a facility on an occasional basis and then going home, would have this type of consideration. In fact I know they don’t, because I can clearly hear the voices of people who play tennis there now~ especially when a lesson is being given to a group of youngsters, and I can hear the conversations of people in the parking lot which lies behind my lot, as well as the excited screams of young children as they ice skate. The outdoor rink is at such a distance that I can hardly ever hear the music but I can hear those jubilant screams loud and clear. Once again to state that while I .notice these occasi~0nal noises, they do not bother me because the u.se is so limited, and ice skating is not present during the warmer months when having the windows open is a necessity.’ But when you increase the frequency of the ~noise to all day, every day, even the most tolerant person is likely to object, especially when they have a limited hope of participating in the Use of the facility. I agree with the general principal that everyone has to put up with things sometimes, but when you can see no benefit to outweigh the detriment, why should you put up with it; this goes to a comment made by a proponent who said someone has to live next. to the fire department. I fail to see the comparison. One final point of concern is the traffic. I was surprised by the Original traffic analysis and continue to be~ concerned about the way staff responded to the publics’ questioning of the issue, especially Since the original findings were discovered to be woefully understated. It also concerns me that regardless of the change in stats, staff continues to feel that the additional traffic will not pose a problem. There is a noticeable difference in the traffic flow from summer to the time the Winter Lodge is in operation. The close proximity of the entrance and exit of the Winter Lodge, to that of our road,~the gas station, and the church across the street causes a great deal’ of problems. Most people coming from the direction of Loma Verde don’t think about slowing down until they hit Safeway and conversely the drivers coming from Colorado tend to speed up once they’ve passed Great Western. ~ constantly live in fear of being rear-ended again, not something I wish to experience again in my lifetime, but a reality because of where I live. Therefore, any additional traffic in that area greatly concerns me. When someone from the public questioned Ms. Grote about how the possible reduction of Middlefield Rd. to two lanes would impact this, Ms. Grote flatly stated that there was’no such proposal. Where has she been, this has been a hotly debated issue for quite a while, how could she not know about it? I’m not the least bit surprised that this has come this.far. The appellants and their neighbors have been voicing the same complaints meeting after meeting and obviously do not feel they are being heard or understood. Please help the situation by taking action to validate these concerns, or I fear this dispute will go on indefinitely. While my fellow neighbors and I have not been as active as the appellants,’ it does not mean that we condone the project, m~re likely it is that we have too many commitments in our lives to fight what we perceive to be a losing battle (the Zoning Administration Hearings proved this to be true). I hope that we do not have tolbring a nuisance action against CSI, but that’s one thing to be thankful for, it’s easier to sue a private party than it is to sue a municipality. Respectfully submitted, J. Alexandria Hayes 3une 20,..1996 To:Janet Freeland 329-2468 From:Genevieve Dean Total numlmr of pages including this cover sheet: May I ask you to bring to the attention of the Zoning Administrator at today’s public h~ the pdints m~ide in my letter.to-you 5f December 6, 1993 concerning conditions to.the permit for use of the tennis courts and the (now defunct) Chuck Thompson swimming. pool? Copies ofthat letter and ofmy April 26, 1995 letter to the City Council with additional comments follow. Please also point out to the Zoning Administrator that Pack Associates’ report to Community Skating on their acoustical analysis of the project refers only.to the noise impact on properties to the north, eaTtst and west of the tennis courts. Has Community Skating found a way to prevent noise ficom carrying to the south? Or is the anfieipa.text noise impact to the south so embarrassing to. CSI that it has been left out of the report? How do Pa~k Associates and CSI expeot to mitigate the noise which will carry intoour homes from the tennis courts, the barbecue pits, the toilets, and the picnic areas under.our windows? I ask that no permit be issued until an impartial shady Of the noise impact on our property is reported to the City authorities. Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 201 Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 26, 1995 Ref.: Community Skating Inc. proposal to lease the former Chuck Thompson fadllty Phase II of the Community Skating proposal is_ inconsistent with the City Council’s directive that development of the site be for low intensity recreational uses compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. ’ ¯ Grandstands presuppose the presence of crowds of spectator~i Crowds Of spectators are noisy, as we who face the backside of bleachers at the Winter Lodge are acutely aware during the annual skating show and in the weeks of preparation before it. Barbecue. pits will concentrate groups of people and extend the hours of use at the site. The Winter Lodge already wafts noise and smells from its barbecue in our dir~,~-tion; no additional source of these annoyances should be imposed on us. A snackbar is unnecessary for a low intensity of a~ivlty on thesite. In any case, there are shopping facilities nearby in Midtown. Why can’t restrooms at the Winter Lodge be used by tennis players? Uncertainty about future development on thh site impacts the lives and plans of the neighbors and the value of our property..I urge you to reject the over-ambitious conc_eptuai proposa/for Phase II ¯ now before you and to .a.dhere to your directive that the site be usedfor low intensity recreation. I also request that, in licensing development of the tennis courts, the City Council establish clear-cut procedures to expedite claims for damage and injury from tennis bails landing on neighboring properties. ’ Si~erely, SENT BY:Xerox TelecopJer 7021 ;11-12-96 ; 12:3’1 ; ~lOOl~=uo ............. Nembers of the City Counci~ City of. Pa!o Alto 250 Hm~tlton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 3077 Middlefield Road, No. 201 Palo Alto, CA 94306 June B,. 1994 Re:Staff recommendation to reject the proposal fQr development of tennis and swimming at 3005 Middlefield Road. to consider other uses for the site. and to fill in the swi,=~ing pool The Proposal Committee has acted as directed by the City Council: to solicit end evaluate proposals to develop tennis and swinwning on the Mtddlefie~d Road stte without .financial input from the City, Though ~he Request for Proposal was widely advertised, only one proposal andone recommendation for use were received - ~n indication of very limited intereet in"such development on this site., The, Committee applied the six criteria listed in Attachment C Of its Staff Report in evaluating the single proposal received and found that the proposal did not meet these criteria, staff therefore correctly recommended that this proposal not be accepte~ and that other uses for the stte be considered which better fulfill these criteria. No argument put forward at the City Council’s June 8 meeting ~ontradicts the Staff’s recommendation. Supporters of Community Skating inc. repeatedly cited anecdotal evidence of the popularity of the Winter Lodge skating rink, However, it ts tennis and swimtng which the Council must consider, not ice Whatever ~ts ~UGGeSS in managing the Wtnter Lodge, CSZ has no track record in managing any facility other than an ice skatlng rink. The Chuck Thompson swimming pool has not operated for a decade, and however sentlmenta~ Individuals may ~eel about ld~t argutng for Itsrevival now is akin to argutng ~hat P~lo Square be given beck to the horses. Testimony from the neighbors unantmous3y supports the Staff’s view that tennis and swimming ere inappropriate in a location now surrounded by residences - in conformity with tte zoning designation, ae opposed to the Winter Lodge/Chuck Thompson site. which wee ex post facto rezoned from multi-f~ily residential to publlc facility. Ae Z-Indicate in my letter of December 6, 1993, which is tnc~uded wt~h the Staff Report, conditions attached to a Use Permit are utterly inadequate and inadequatelyenforced to control the impact of large,scale organized outdoor activitiesone st~e so close to residential neighborhoods. We who ~i11 be directly affected by wh~ever happens on the site are fewerin number than those who would like ~o enjoy an hour of ~ennis or swimmin@ there and then return to theIF homes in other, quieter neighborhoods..But we will be disturbed by hour after hour of their noise in our homes, though as citizens and taxpayers, we too are entitled to "protection from exoessive,-unnecessar~ and unreasonable noises from "~ny~n.d all sources in the community," as declared in section 9.10,010 of the Palo Alto ordinances. I urge you to uphold our entitlement to this fundamental Hight, no matter how many citizens of Palo Alto and other communities assert; their greater need for additional tennis and swimming facilities on Middlefield Road. Sincerely, Genevieve C, Dean 3077 Hlddlefte|d Road, No. 201 Pale Alto, CA 94306 December 6, 1993 Ns. Janet FreslandDepartaent of Ftnance, Clty of P~lo Alto 250 H~nllton Avenue Pale Alto~ CA 94303 Dear Ns. Freeland: Please convey the following observations to the conmlttee evaluating proposals for the s~lm/tennts facility at 3005 Hlddlefteld Read. This property was rezoned tn 1989 from multi-family residential to Public Fec111ty to bring Its zonlng designation Into confom.lty ~tththe rezonlngof thls site. the ed~acent property ~o the south had a~ready been converted to mu~tl-famlly residential use, to con~onato0tt~zontng designation. Single family homes surround the stte entre other stdes. The homes on the sou~h and eas~ s~des o~ the s~tmalng pool and tennis court~ are tn ~]ose proximity the boundarybet~een ~he properties. The condominiums to the southoverlook recreation area. Thts st~e Is, therefore, unsuitable .for Intensive outdoor recreations] use by large numbers of people, such as the program proposed by ~he ~tn~er Lodge. Zf this property ts further developed for recreation, the conditions tBposed ~n the current use pemtt for opera~lon of the ska~tng ~tnk are an una~oeptab]e ~ode~ for the rest. of fJ~ property. These condttfons tmpose very generous boundaries on both the vo~umeofnotsepemlttedandthehoure such notse can be made. Restrictions are enforced only on a co~platnt b~sts, and there is no mechenlsmto preven~ repea~ed violations. The result hes been~nendless cycle of disturbance, calls to ~heHtnter Lodge or to the po||ce, temporary reduction (at best) of the offendtnsno~se, follo~dbyres~,pttonofnotseattheortglhal disturbing level. CondttJons Imposed an the use of the s~tm, tng pool and tennis courts should Insure that fJm volume of notse reachtng the surrounding homes and the hours at ~htoh suoh noise ts transmitted are compatible ~lth a residential netghbortxxx~, trrsspec~lveofthezontng destgna~lonuherethenolse originates. Operattonof these facilities should be confined to the hours specified for exceptions to notse ltmtts In sectton 9.10.060 of the Pale Alto City Ordinances (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Nonday to F~lday, 9:00 a.mo 1;o 8:00 p.m..Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 8:OOp.m. Sundays andholtdays). The proxtmtty of ourhomestotheswt~tngpool and tennls oou~cs means there ~tll be very.little attenuation of notse as 1~ travels from the source and reaches us. Therefore, maximum pemttted levels of notse should be stated in tems of the volume of noise pemttted to reach the surrounding restdences,.rether than the levels elbowed on the slte. These should not ex~eed the levels established tn section 9.10.030(b) of the City Ordinances, ~htoh Is specifically not sub~ect to the exceptions pemltted In section 9.10.060. To this end, activities Involving large numbers of participants, team competition, and large audle,ces should be~ert)ldden on the proi~rty. Bleachers should not" be erected; Electron1 a~pllftcatton of sound, both muslc and announcements on a public address system, should be minimized or, preferably, prohibited. Additional tennis courts (or any other facill.ty for outdoor activity) should not beconstructed In the "back slte area," only a few feet from our. homes, as proposed by the PATC. Facilities such as outdoor barbecues and picntc tables should be sited as far as possible fro~ residences, and noise and s~nells from these areas should be contained. : It should not be necessary for the neighbors to be disturbed for ~hese conditions to be enforced: the goal should be not to disturb the neighbors in the first place. City authorities should expect operators to honor the conditlons of their use permit voluntarily, and there should be sharply e~calating levels of punishment for repeated violations, culminating in revocation of the use permlt If violations continue. Responsible City officials should have authortty to enforce these conditions promptly and effectively. Sound attenuation should not totally depend on ’the self-restrai~t of the operators; the conditions attached to ause permit should also r~ndate "passive restraints," such ~s acoustic .mte~lals and baffles which ~bsorb noise and prevent its re~ching the surrounding homes. These should be fully in place before the facilities come into use. Any propoeed-newconstructton should be evaluated by acoustics experts for its lmpact, on the noise transmitted to the neighbors, not only fro~ swimming/tennis activities, but also from the ice rink. Fore,x ample, will noise from the outdoor rink, which will traVel in a direct line to the wall of the gym proposed by the Winter Lodge, be reflected .ba~k and further ~mpltfied in the direction of our residences? Wlll noisefromthepool area, whether used for swimming or t~nnis, bounce against the wall of the tce rink and be deflected to~ardthe sm~e homes? A detatled study of these and other considerations by independent experts (i.e., whose cltent is the City o~ Palo. Alto, not one of the Interested I~rttes) is Imperative. As a Public Facility, this property ts an anomaly In a residential neighborhood. Outdoor recreational activities which generate a large volume of noise are ~napproprtate on a stte so closely surrounded by homes - and year-round actlvttteswould impose anundueaddtttonal hardship on residents who are already ondurtngoxceestve noise from the Winter Lodge from~eptember through Hay. request the City Council and s~afftoconstder uses for this proper~y other than revtvtng activities which have not beencenducted on the sitefor many years, and which are no longer ~o~pattble with the character .of the surrounding neighborhood. 3077 Hi.ddlefield Road, No. 201 Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 26, .1993 .The City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303-0852. May I request the City Council to add to the Request foF Pcoposals for development of the tennis/swim ~acility at 3009 Midd]efield Road’s requirement that the noise generated by any ...use of the facility be:contained on- the stte? £ understand that an Environmental "Impact Study will be performed in the future. However, no formal study is necessary to recognize that the " residences in such close proximity to three stdes of the tennis courts and swimming pool will be adversely affected by any open-air activity on the site. A primary consideration, of which all potential lessees should be made aware at the very beginning of the process,.should be to prevent any additions! noise from reaching the surrounding residences, which already endure unreasonable levels o~ noise ~Pom the N~nter Lodge skatJng r~nk from m~d- September ~hrough mid-Hay. The noise levels permitted the Win~er Lodge are predicted by experts ~o’provoke reactions ranging from "widespread complaints" ~o. "~hreats o? community ,action" ~o "vigorous community action." Ex~ending similar noise levels into ~he summer months, when our windows are open, ~ill surely generate even stronger antagonism. Zn fairness to potential bidders for ~he Bite, th~s situation should be avoided by requiring ~ha~ the physical plant "- not merely use restrictions, Nhtch have had only marginal effect at the ~intsr Lodge -co,strain ~he noise generated. ¯ I am confident that a City Council which is defending the citizens of Palo Alto against noise from the Shoreline’ Amphitheater will also defend tts Gitizens from equally disturbing and more.prolonged noise generated on its own property. St n.~erely, ,% ~enevteve C. Dean enc;:letter to Joseph M. colonna dated FBb. 23, 1992 memo to Nancy Lytle dated July 10, 1989 TO: CC: FROM: Palo Alto Planning Commission 415 328 3631 Palo Alto City Council Genevieve Dean (phone) 415 493-3662 November 12, 1996 This is in support of the appeal ofthe Zoning Administrator’s approval of a conditional use permit for the operation of a tennis facility at 3009.Mlddlefield Road (96.UP-1). The =xtcoms raised in my leiters to the City Council dated April 26, 1993, June 8, 1894, and April 26, 1995; and to Ms. Janet Freeland ofthe Department of Firranee dated De~ember 6, 1993 and June 20, 1996 (copies enclosed) have not been addressed. 8peclficelly, the Zoning Administrator’s approval does not refle¢t my ~n~erns that: ¯Noise generated on the site be contained on the site by the physical plant; ¯Activities Involving large numbem of participants be forbidden (not accommodated by, for example, the oonstmction of bleachers and restrooms); ¯All electronic ampli~m of sound be proh’d:~d; ¯Sharply escafa~ing levels of punishment be established for repeated violations of the use permit. The acoustical report by Edwa~ L Pack Assodates dated April 8, lg96 and addressed to the applicant fails to measure the noise general~ by acUvitiea not now occurring on the site but presupposed by the plans approved by the Zoning Administrator: for example, in the "rest" area Immediately adjacent to the residences on Pdr, e Court and next door to the site.. It is an inadequate ba~is for any de~ision on your part. The filing of this appeal is an opportunity for the Planning Commission and the City Cour~il to ~-orre~ earlier failures to address these and other points in my previous communications, which I hereby re-submit for your consideration. 3077 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto Patti Hight 2511 Webster St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 324-9552 Attachment 15 July 18, 1996 Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator City Hall Planning Department 250 Hamilton Ave. ~aio ,~ito, CA 94301 ....... Dear Ms. Grote: I am writing in support of the refurbishing of the tennis courts next to the Winter Lodge. I just moved to the midtown area from Barton Park and although I do not live.right next to the proposed site, I believe it is a .~ood thing for the nei,,hborhood~, . . . ~I believe that families need places like."this to go to spend time together and that children would benefit from the proposed play area. My ’12 year old son plays tennis and we do not belong to any type of tennis club and this would be an ideal place for him to play and/or take lessons. I hope the city will consider having a junior tennis team at this site. An .y)vay, I just wanted you to know that my family is supportive of this project and we hope it goes through. Thank you. Sincerely, Patti Hight 1996 Winter Lodge 3009 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California 94306 (415)493-4579 July 10, 1996 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto MS. Grote, The purpose of this letter is to ," "° "; ........ " .........su,.n,’.at .... the :.c.-,t~,,no~. of Co:m’nunity Skating Inc. (CS!) to the comments made during the zoning administration’s use permit hearing on 6120196 regarding the proposed plans for the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis facility in Midtown. As a past president and current board member of CSI, I was present at the meeting for the purpose of answering any remaining questions you and/or staff may have had regarding CSI’s proposal and to listen to the comments and concerns made by the public regarding our plans. I and the other CSI representatives present deliberately maintained a rather low profile during the hearing and tried not-to be seen as combative about the issues raised. The only issue that I responded to was the comments by the "pseudo sound experts" at the hearing who questioned the validity of the sound report. As I attempted to explain, the measurements were made as required by the city of Palo Alto and in accordance with standard engineering practice using state-of-the-art equipment by a licensed sound engineering firm, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.. Pack Associates is a member of the Acoustical Society of America, the American Society of Safety Engineers, the Audio Engineering Society, and the Institute of Environmental Sciences. It would be doubtful that a prestigious consulting firm would perform the shoddy and erroneous work being suggested by these two complainants. My only other comment at the hearing was an attempt to put into perspective what the hearing was about and how we got here. CSI’s option-to-lease was the result of its response to the city RFP for a private operator to deveiop and opcntte the recreational facilities at the site. The city council approved by a 9-0 vote the motion, that CSI’s RFP represented the final chapter in fulfilling the voters mandate of 1985. Nearly 75% of the voters in Palo Alto voted to trade city owned dedicated park land for the Chuck Thompson/Winter Lodge site, an unprecedented happening in Palo Alto! This land swap, as former mayor Mike Cobb so profoundly stated in his final comments to city council during the hearings on the RFP, "while there may have been a debate within the council at the time (1985) about the land swap, it was very clear what the people wanted." A VCR copy of Mike’s comments regarding the land swap is provided for background information. With respect to my impressions of the use permit hearing itself, it seemed to me that things got a little off-track when the rhetoric drifted to comments about the city’s pool removal noise, sidewalk blockage during the recent parking lot construction, BBQ’s, rodents and bats, BBQ’s (again), restroom odors, Winter Lodge noise and indeed, even them challenging your own authority in this matter. I did appreciate your efforts to point out the fact, on numerous occasions, that there are no BBQ’s in the plans and that some statements were flat out erroneous. I hope that your instructions for the continuance hearing are adhered to, limiting discussions to your investigations of concerns raised and to new issues. CSI expects to be well represented at the continuance hearing and will be prepared to present any level of additional detail on our plans that you may feel necessary. In reflection, I would like to point out the fact that in the process of obtaining city council approval for the option-to-lease, almost all of the issues raised at the permit hearing (6/20/96) had been previously voiced by basically the same people. At that City Council meeting it was decided by council to limit the hours of operation to daylight hours while approving the overall p!an. Again, with the risk of repeating myself, the permit hearing was a result of city council action which has directed CSI and city staff to work together to make this recreational facility happen. For the past year this is in fact what we have done; we have met with the planning department and public works on numerous occasions during the year to discuss and modify our plans. The option-to-lease package has been thoroughly reviewed’ by staff and to CSrs knowledge there are no ’red flag’ issues unresolved. Jan E. van der Laan CSI board member Scale lOOft.. PRIVATE HOMES I,I MATADERO CREEK EXIS’RNG PARKING I ARCO PRICE COURT Patio RINK WINTER LODGE 3009 New landscaped parking area PRIVATE HOMES VET. CLINIC wall fencing I.~dscaped park ’" and rest area New landscaping L~......... ~ Covered p~tio and restrooms EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPING RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS MIDDLEFIELD ROAD CURRENT AREA AND SITE MAP FOR