Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-01 City Council (14)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Repor TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 6 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DECEMBER 1, 1997 CMR: 481:97 SUBJECT:ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THREE APPEALS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATORAPPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-UP-1 AT 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, FOR AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SERVICE (TENNIS FACILITY) ON THE FORMER CHUCK THOMPSON TENNIS AND SWIM CENTER SITE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the noise mitigation recommendations presented in the October 30, 1997 letter from Richard Rodkin, Acoustical Consultant, to Council Member Ron Andersen, including ten-foot-high sound walls around the edges of all five tennis courts. Staff further recommends that, after completion of the public hearing, the City Council directs staff to notice the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and that action on the appeals of this conditional use permit not be taken by the City Council until January 1998, after the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been legally noticed for the required 20-day public review period. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Community 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. CMR: 481:97 Page 1 of 4 A project history and chronology of major events is presented in the attached City Council and Planning Commission staff reports. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES On September 15, 1997, the City Council directed the three appellants and the applicant to meet outside the public hearing process to discuss the issues with the project and to attempt to develop acceptable solutions to the identifiedproblems. The appellants and applicant met with Council Member Andersen, a mediator, three acoustical consultants and other interested parties in two mediation sessions, one on October 16, 1997, and another on October 30, 1997. As directed by the Council, City staff was not present at these sessions. The details of the discussion are confidential and cannot be discussed publically, however it appears that the results of the mediation sessions were inconclusive. However, as part of this process the City’s noise consultant developed a proposal for ten-foot-highwalls around the edges of the courts that would satisfactorilymitigate the noise from the facility. The acoustical consultant has prepared two letters and a map outlining his position (see Attachment A, letters from Richard Rodkin to Council Member Andersen, dated October 29, 1997, and October 30, 1997, respectively). City staff has received a response from one of the appellants in apparent opposition to the position outlined by the City’s consultant (see Attachment B, letter from John Abrahams, received November 14, 1997). It is his contention that sound levels need to be mitigated for the entire height of the property plane, and that would not be possible with a ten-foot-high wall. He maintains that no wall could be built that would mitigate the sound levels for the entire property plane. He states, however, that if the use permit is approved, that a masonry, not wood, sound wall should be constructed and that it should be along the edges of the courts, not along property lines. He also readdresses issues such as the intensity of use and the similarities between the YMCA project and this project. Staffhas responded to those issues previously in the attached City Council and Planning Commission staff reports (see Attachment D). He also suggests further modifications to the potential conditions of approval. Staff has also received suggested conditions of approval from another appellant (see Attachment C, conditions suggested by Natalie Fisher, dated November 6, 1997). The issue of the type and costs of material the sound wall could be constructed of has been discussed by staffand the City’s acoustical consultant. A masonry sound wall costs between $125.00 and $200.00 per linear foot and a wooden sound wall costs between $80.00 and $150.00 per linear foot. The masonry wall will last indefinitely if maintained properly. however, wood requires more maintenance and repair than masonry. For these reasons, staff would prefer a masonry wall. It was generally suggested during the mediation sessions that a cap be placed on the amount of money the applicant would be required to spend on the CMR: 481:97 Page 2 of 4 sound wall. The entire length of the wall would be approximately 550 lineal feer. The approximate cost of a 550-foot long, 10-foot tall, masonry sound wall would be about $130,000, using cost estimates developed by the Department of Public Works (see Attachment E). These estimates include design and contingency estimates. An issue has also been identified regarding a 20-foot-wide strip of land that would run most of the length of the north side of the site ifa sound wall is placed along the edge of the courts rather than along the northern edge of the property. City staff recommends that this area be heavily landscaped and maintained by CSI. Plant material that discourages people from using the area is recommended. A final issue that has been raised by one of the appellants is in regard to a ten-foot landscape buffer between creeks and uses on land zoned public facility (Section 18.32.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). If this site were being developed for the first time with a new facility, the ten-foot landscape buffer would be required adjacent to Matadero Creek. However, the proposedproject is not a new facility. It is a remodel and minimal expansion of an existing tennis facility. Thecourts along the western boundary, adjacent to Matadero Creek, are in essentiallythe same location they have been in for 25 years. The City is requiring mitigation as though the facility were new, however, there is not enough room to keep the courts in their existing location and provide a ten-foot landscape strip and an acoustical sound wall. It would be possible to install a newsound wall with vines or other plant materials. BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION There has been no further Board or Commission action since the recommendation made by the Planning Commission on July 30, 1997, to deny the three appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the use permit, with conditions. ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION 1. Deny the Use Permit 2.Direct that an Environmental Impact Report be completed for the originally proposed lower wall (6’ in height). ATTACHMENTS A.Letters from Richard Rodkin, dated October 29 and 30, 1997 B.Letter from John Abraham, received November 14, 1997 CMR: 481:97 Page 3 of 4 Co E° Suggested Conditions on Tennis Project from Natalie Fisher, dated November 6, 1997 September 15, 1997 City Manager’s Report, CMR:385:97, with all attachments (Council Members only) Cost Estimates from the Department of Public Works. 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, 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 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment EMIL2~~SON Assistant City Manager CMR: 481:97 Page 4 of 4 Acoustics ¯ Air Quality Attachment A October 29, 1997 Ron Anderson City of Palo Alto City Council P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SUBJECT: 3009 1Miiddlefield -- l~ded~tion Efforl Dear Mr. Anderson: I am writing this letter to summarize the comments that I made at the last mediation meeting and to respond to a question from WN Wang regarding the method we used to calculate the effectiveness of sound barriers. Before designing mitigation m~ures, one must have a set of assumptions !n place regarding the allowable noise level the location and !~,1 of the source of the noise, and the possible locations for the noise barriers, With respect to the Noise Ordinance, the City detem~ed that the Ordimmce would allow an instantaneous, rtgetitive noise level (I.,~,~0 of 15 dBA above the ambient. Based on measurements by .leffPaek, the ambient is assumed to be 41 dBA. The allowable maximum rel~titive noi~ level would therefore b~ 56 dBA. I recommend that the noise ordinance be enforced in the center of the rear yards of the adjacent residences or on the balconies of the adjacent condominiums. Using data developed by Vincent Salmon and JeffPack, I determined that a sound level of 76 dBA would be appropriate for noise ordinance ~natysis. This level is the tenth percentile below the top of the statistical distribution ofnois~ levels which were supplied in their reports (2 dBA below the loudest measured level). This would tm representative of the noise generated by a serve. The height of the serve is assumed to be 9 feet above the 8round The serves are assumed to be struck at the service line in Court 3 for the analysis to the west and in Court 5 for the analyses to the north and I have enclosed barrier calculations, Calculation Sheets 1 and 2 summ~.rize calculatioos to the north. The barrier is assumed to be located at the north property line, Calculations show the barrier must be 9 to 10 feet high in order to reduce noise to 56 dBA L.~..~.,,. We, therefore, 85 Bollnas .Road, #11 ¯Fairfex, CalJfdrnla 94930 ¯(415)459-5507 ¯FAX (415)459-6448 OCT-29-1997 15:24 4154595448 95X p.02 Ron Anderson .... October 29, 1997 P~ge 2 recommend a 10-foot barrier at the north prop~-y line. Calculations to the west are shown on page 3. Barrier, were tested on each side of the creek. A 10-fool barrier is necessary along the Winterl~Ige ~ide of the creek and an 8-foot barri~ is necessary along the neighbors’ side of the creek. The problem 1o lhe east with the condominium~ iz som~-vvhat different because it is a multi-story structure. The unmitigated noise level i~ predic¢~ to be 61 dBA at the balconies of the . condominiums. A~mming amtherrt noise levds are similar at the condominium., then 5 dBA of additional noise reduotion is r~uircxl. As~uming a s~cond-~ory receptor 14 f~t above the ground, a 14-foot bvsrier is nece~y at the property lin~. An altornafive would be to construct a 10-foot hi/~,h barrier ~t the east edge of Court 5. Barrier heights and locations are shown on the ~clo~--d figure. The an~ysis is based on information provided on plans and from the respective parties. To be effective, tl~ barrier must be ~lid, have a minimum surface weight of 3 lbs./fl.~ and be constructed airtight over the face ofth~ barrier and at the base of the barrier. Suitable materials would include masonry panel~, concrete par~ls, ma~nry block, or wtr~d, if properly detailed. We genexally r~omm~nd a post~and-plywood panel constru~-’tion for wood barriers. An alternative along the edg~ of Court 5 would be to construct a plexigl~ss b,,rrier or a combination of, a solid wall ~pporting a plexJglass barrier above so that ~etivifies on the courts could be viewed from the p~rk. This concludes the summary, of my analy~es. U~ortunately, I am not able io attend the meeting ¯ on October 30fla due to illness but will b¢~ available after that to answer may questions. Siacerely yours, Richard B. R~lkd~ PE Enclo,~ures (97-025) 18/28/1997 16:85 4154596448 1LLINI~L~Ut-.’|H RODKIN i~AI~-I~ i! PAGE 0CT-29-1997 15:26 4154596448 96X F’. OE, DCT-2’_~-1997 :1.5: 2?4154596448 IIIIB Acoustics ¯ Air Ouality lll/ MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: Ron Anderson/City Council/City of Palo Alto Richard B. Rodkin, PE October 30, 1997 3009 Middlefield -- Mediation Effor~ I am writing this melno in response to a letter received today from Jeff Pack of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. and a telephone conversation with Mr. Pack. He conducted additional noise measurements of tennis play of the type that would be representative, in his opinion, of activities that would occur at Winterlodge. The new data would support assuming a lower noise level for the noise of tennis play..His analysis confirmed that approximately a 9-foot. source height would be appropriate.for an adult serving. Using. hi~ data, he proposes a 9- foot barrier at an alternative location adjacent to the courts along the west property line, a 10-foot barrier adjacent to thecourts along the north property line, and no barrier along the east side of Court 5. While his data increases nay comfort level regarding likely conformance with the noise ordinance, I hesitate to discount the data that Dr. Salmon has gathered. I suggest constructing a 10-foot barrier around the west, north .and east court boundaries as an alternative (Figure 1). The 10-foot barrier along the north property boundary, we concur, is the minimum necessary. The 10-foot barrier along the west property boundary (l.-foot higher than Mr. Pack recommends) would provide a definite break in the line-of-sight between a person serving and a person standing in the rear yard. While Mr. Pack’s data indicates that the ordinance limits would be met at the condominiums with no mitigation along the east side of the courts, only a slight excursion above his predicted worst case levels would cause an exceedance. It would, therefore, be prudent to continue the noise mitigation along the east edge of the proposed Court 5, as we previously recommended, RBR:gfl Enclosure (97-025) 85 Bollnas Road, #11 ¯Feirlax, Ct~llfornla 94930 ¯(415)459.5507 ¯FAX (415)459-6448 2T-30-1997 ~5:29 4154596448 9fix P. ~J~ t 1-1997 15:3{~4154596448 977. rit~ df F’a!o Alto 253 Ham il ton Avenue Palo Alto California I’-io’,,ember 13, 19,_37 Attachment B Deaf- Ms. Grote: Reqardin.q the Proposed Tennis Project and the Cit.LI Council Meetin.q of December-I, 1997 and an~4 upd;~te or r-e’,,’lslo~~ of the staff recomrner~dations (CMR:385:97, Se.pternber 15, 1997) I ask that you con~:;ider the follo,,.Yiru3: The Pr-o~osed Tennis Pro.lec-I: Will Likely Be Illegal On November 3,-1997 1 asked Lt. Don Hartnett of the Palo Alto Police Department where on the enclosed tennis site plan police would make their noise measurements should there be a comE, faint. He replied that would be at tI~e properbA planes aloru3 tI~e three boundaries I have labelled A,B andC. In the-case nfE ~-’~’~ ......~- ,~-_ II ....u[ [h Ple~_.~ d~[ ,¢uul,~ ~[,~,~ just on the east side of Matadero Creek where the outer chain link fence now surrounds the tennis courts. Further, the code is enforced over the entire property plane, not just up to the height of a wall. Thus, for example, the Co[ldomlnlums or enl4 neiqhbor with a two stor~4 residence or skqlight would be entitled 1o ~rotection for their-residence even ~f necessit.ated taking noise measurements at the top of an existing sound wall. As qou are aware, Mr. Rodkin I~as recommended that the ambient be 41 dBA ~t the site and tl]us the implied noise limit under public facility zoninq is~"_ ."~-.,L, dBA. Since tennis serves at thenear~st ~,~,~n]position on CourL-=3 are about 26 feet from the site~,pr°pertN pla~e opposite our home, the noise measurement will be sorne~,here b~wee,~ about 77 dBA fDr r..-,- ~..--,,-.,.. o~Imon’s maximum estimate) 76 dBA (Mr. Rud,~]n.:, maximum estimate) or 70 dBA (I’h-. Pack’s preferred upper limit) or 62 dBA, Mr. F’ack’s original averaqe tennis hit noise estimate or April 8 1996 adjusted ~or 26 fee[. In all cases where adults are plaNi~ the measuremen, ts will s~nificantlN exceed 56 dBA and the pt=oi~timmediatelq illeqal..~rnilar pr~;blems I]old for Court #4 next tb Price Court and C6urt #-5 and the Condominiums. I believe Mr. Rodkin has made a commendable effort on behalf of the ci[q [o propose mitigations desiqned to save the proiect and still afford ne~hbors some de~t~e of protec~ion. It is clear fror~ the waq the policemaI~e their measu(-~ments however, that no practical sound ~arrier will make the proiec[ leqal at this site. The limits have [o hold at the top of Lhe wall (despite [’I[:. Rodkin’s obiections) and the relevant distance even wiLh a ten foot wail, for example is still less than 2Fi fee[ from the server (for the Ellsworth residents) and hence the expected noise measurements are still ~ui[e illeqal. While Mr. Rodkin’s proposed metric at Lhe middle of our back yard i-s reasonable it is clearlu outside the no~se ordinance, as h~ has alreadq ~ndicaI~d (paq~ ~4-’777 of the City Council minutes of the c-- ~__~F[-1.5, la~7 Meeting). EIR Problems At t.he September 15, 1997 Ci[q Council Meeting, it. was noted that a rnltlL~at.ed negative declaration wa-:s approve4 for I.he applicant rather t.han require an EIR. Mr. Calonne. Palo Alto Cit!4 ~[tui~q, noted that ~d~,A guidelines re~:lulre a rnltigated negative de,_::laration tn he c-learly effective if it is ~-J-:.~ in lieu of an EIR (Cf. pa.qe 8~ .76 CitLI Council Minutes of 5~.p~er-ni:ier 15, 1997:,. The curren( 6 fOOt no s6 barMermitin~tinn iF: ~dmittm~l~ ~tl~ff~r:ti(,,p in nr~wntit’n illp2~l iRnnig: t-tieR nt Price Court and needs to be re-examined. Please note on Saturdaq September 20, 1997 at 10:30 a.m. Dr. Salmon took ambient measurement~ ~n our backqround and recorded an ambient level of 37 dBA, and about an hour earlier, 34 dBA at Ms. Wang’s back yard (both below levels reco~nized bq the Cit~L, Please note also that even with a ten foot soundbarM-er alon~ the Ell~,orUl side tennis propert~ plane, we would t~ave a "discount" (t6ch~call~, insert io~ loss) o ~ 8 dBA ~ccordinq to Mr. Rodkin’sfigures. Titus qi.,en 7~ dBA serx, es at court #3, we would-be gettinq back yard no~se lev61s about 56 dBA, quite a dramatic increase over wight we nave now. CEOAquidelines consider siqnificant effects in Appendix G of the CEQA Gui~el’~nes. In ~articular "signf.icant effect (p)"Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adioining areas;" would apply to this propertN even w~th a barMer, t believe~ Thus the project also has a CEQA ~roblen~. YMCA versus The Tennis Site Noise measurements were made at the YMCA site at the perimeter and oIie can compare the EIR noise report (A complete ,coPLI appears inattacIlment ~=~ of the September 15, 1997 City Council Pack~t,~ Y;,’itli the l.ennis noise at our projecL From paqe 74 of the YMCA EIR report: "Tile noise measurement conducted at" the rear proB~ert.LI line sho,,-,,ed that parking lot noisetNpically_ t,~I~!~u-- -.- ~ from 45-47 dBA. The highest nni:--~._ __ l~,,,=I.=,~."~. ’- at this location were generated bLI activitLI in the .q.qm. Tile rear door to tile g.LIm was open and the sound cif the r~feree’s ~,s,,:~llistles, air horns, cheerl{~g, etc., r~n!:l~d~ from 49-59 dBA. Tupical noise levels for such activities ,;’;,er~ .,0~,.,._~ ~IBA. Durinq t.he ~,~ine, the .sol.,~.nd o~ the qLIm nolse ’,,’,’asclearly audible abo,,e the I:~ackgri~und n:dse lek~el in the Our noise measurements at the east side of Matadero Creek will Clulte often exc~.~.d__ 6"2 dBA from ’-P..:,~-"~..-,,~.:,. Thus the criteria used b~ the Palo Alto Police in code enforcement indicates~a greater noise problem for I-liddle~ield than for the YMCA. Both CSi arld PATC ,a, re likel.LI t?, heavi!.LI promote the use of thist.~,~In::;- facilib4 as the!4 ha,,e their a]::ti,,,ities ir~the pant .... If tile prn’~.nl.] .... i.~ to be pusIied throu.qIi-as it is., ille.qalit.LI notwithstanding, the neighbors should be entitled’to at least tti~ san:~e noise barrier protection that YMCA neighbors got, namely a high masonry wall. Masonry Versus Wood Noise Barrier n all Mr. Pack’s discussions about noise barriers for CSI there has been an as..-:~urnption that an~4 barrier wnulrl be clliefli~ nf wood. Tile appellants stron.qlLI obiect to-such a construction on the-b~sis that with alterna~.e fain ~nl] d~:LIin~ and natural s~,Iittinq of nv~.rlappinq woo,i surfaces, ~n.q ori_qinall-LI ~irtiqht v,,,’ood structur~ v,,,’ouid-likelLI ~oon be ineffective. ~As e-~arnpl~s of ,&d~at happens to wood fences at ].he site I have included t,,,vo snapshol.s of the existinq fence alonq the east or ~pp,nq boards demonstratinq breaf..::~sqe, splinterinq, kn:~tholes poppinq out plants growing throL~gh and a ~generatlLI dilapidated appearance, t-have not been able to l"ind anLlone in Ptar~nin,~ oi--else ,, here ,,ho,can or ,,1!1 saLI thatthis is or is not-a sounrl harrier~ but it certainl.LI doe._--: not qualif.Ll to~l~-~LI as such. Photo D :::how::’, a ser:tion of what is alrn~bst surely a sound bar~-ier near the front nf . Winter Lodge entrance and the-.--~-.idominiums with cl~acklnq inat leas~-two places. It Is,~ifficult to~!:h~c:k how ha41LI the o,,erlap~in!:l boards ar~leakinq air but o,,er time it ::tretches belief’thatthe ori.qin,~-i standards still ho~Id. " Co~i-~trast tJ~,is with the durable masonr.LI wall at St. Marks Church at 600 Colorado A’,,enue specifir:ations enc:Ios~d F:~r some reas3n this wall is quite ivy friendl.q cornpared Y;,’ith the thicker YMCA ,,,’,,,’all. While Lhis particlular design is’the most attractiv~ nf anq lhave seen, anq masonr.qwall ~:,~’ould be’preferable, in our viev.,,, to ari.~I wood fence. The soun~ barrier in Menlo PaM.-.: opp,_:,slLe SRI alon~ I’lidrIl~field Road is an example of a recenLILI completed sound wall that avoids the Cal-Trans appearance we often se~ along local freeways. Intensl[q of Use. pa~.qe 3 or 7. There is an error of nrnlssion here, probabIN ba~ed on Lin~Ta Jensen’s letter of June 4, I’397 to ~o~ (Attach~~en~ 2 of tI~e Julq 30, 1997 Packet to t~e Plannihq C~omm~ssi~n).T!~e Palo Alto Tennis Clu6, participatinQ with CSI in the o~eration of tl]e proposed fac~Iitq, has ccmsistentlq sta~ed that 8 adult tournaments p~ryear will be cor6ucted a~ the site~ (Cf. Remarks by Mr. Bradley pa~es 25 and 26 of U~e rnlnu~es of ~he Planninq Cnmmi:~:~inn M~tinq nf ,h~l~ 30 1997 and the enclosed tentative scl~edu~e pr~i~ed ~ I"I~-. ~r~le-U o~ PATC tothe appellants). In our commumcations withr~-Dresentativ~s of the P~C there 13as been no cl]anqe since the Julq 30,1997 hearirlq, nolesseninq of the the 8 adult l.ou[-narnents in addition to the proP~3sed cl]ildren’~; tournaments. The adult tournaments tqpicalIH last all dan Saturda~ and Sunda~4 and can be expected to lqenera[e ,sorn~ o¢ the worst noise at the facili’}.q. It is inaccurate to’mention orly two to four children’s tournarnet~ts at the s~te in arquinq for a low ~ntensity characterization. Condition number 26 needsto fie modified accordingl~. Recluested Modifications of the Draft Conditions For Use Permit 96-UP- i ¯ .. ._,,.al L~/~q ~.~l~::, .’_-41a~I I-ii-:r:Ui-___ riO ~,’~ ~iei- ~,.~,ml ...... q_ 63[1. oR weekdaHs and 10 a.~@], on weekends. Either Saturdaq or Sundaq shall be d~siqna~ed as a rest daq for the neiqhbc, r~,~ach week.- Tl~e applicant shalla,.oi~ sd~eduling tenn~’s and skat~n~ e,.~nts simultaneousIN to avoid q"R’-" - " ",.,. ~t ~,t~d]n~ the parkin~ facilities." No more than 8 tourn6ments per Near includir~q both adult and cl~ildren’s tournaments. Eiencl]es sisal] be ~;ermitted, bU~ no bleachers. No electronic sound amplification~oh~]l-r be permitted on the facility. No ball macl~ines or practice walls shall be permitted. Add the following sentence: "The applicant shall ask lhe Paio Alto Police ~o obtain names of keyholder violaters and forward these names i.o f.he t.he applicant, in order f.o have ]nformat.ion sufficient to enforce its revocation procedures." Otherwise police would sirnply warn violators and no ,:,he would ever be punished for a ’,,,’1o!~,~.inn durinq off ho.]rs Alo~ robe kep[ by[he applicant of complaints and violation~ I ncludJr~g f.ho,.:~e-’t-eported bq pnlice, an,-I how t.hey were resolved. The C I ty t.o have ~L:~.SS tO t.his log ~t any time and review it periodically. q There --’._._..’.:;h~d~l be a masolirlj ’,,,’,tf-l]], not WL-IOd alonq E11sworth Plat:e, on the east slde of applicanl.’s properU~I nearest f"latade~--o Creek. In addition we ask that any such sound wall b~constructed prior to tennis court construcl.ion and resurfac~ng so as to prevent no]se and dust ,,,I II_.~.problems, as was done at the -" 9B W~. ~:-~I.-: that nni.~, monitorln~l he c,~rri~.d n~t for tl~e PATC aduli~urna({1~n~as well as the children’s tournanierit~. Thus tI~e Y./ordin~.~f the~second sentence of tI~is condition shall be chan~ed to read"This [~tin~ shall be funded b~ the operator 5~f the facilit~ and shall occur durin~ regular business l~6urs as well a~ ,~u~)nq tourn’~merits foradults arid ~ reqular leaque ~lai4." The l~ea,.ie~t’i~ ~ ~ occur for adult pl~y,"not for c~:~lay."’ Palo Alto California 94306 I)Site rnap of 3009 Middlefielrl from appIicanf.’s handnut af. the July 30, 1997 Plannin.q Commission Hearin.q. 2)Palo Alto Tennis i~lub proposed sci]edule at 3009 Middlefield as receiverl from Mr. Bradley of PATC, upon request.~& 4) Specifications of masonrN wall at St. tlark’s Church at""600 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alt6. Copied from the computer archives at the Plannin.q Department, Cit.LI of Palo Alto 4)Snapshol.s taken by ,~]ohn K. Abrahan~-of wood barriers at 3009 Middlefield and masonry barrier at 600 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto Tennis Club Tournaments & USTA Leagues PATC USTA League USTA League Tournaments Fall / Winter Season Spring Season Playing Season April- November October- March (1)April- mid-July No. of Teams in (n/a)7- 8 10- 12 League No. of Teams Using (n/a)2 - 3 (21 3 - 4 (21 Same. Home Courts Frequency of Play Monthly Weekly Weekly Days of Week Sat. & Sun. (31 Saturday Tues, Wed, Thurs. Court Hours 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.1:00 - 3:00 p.m.6:00 - 8:00 p.m. No. of Players 20 - 40 141 12 16 Courts Required 4 or 5 3 5 Notes: (1)The absence of lighted courts eliminates any evening play during the October- March season. The Leagues would not use any courts from late July through September. (2) These teams may use the same home courts. Over half of these events are played "away from home" at sites hosted by other teams. The Spring season is the heaviest usage of the courts. (3) A few tournaments are one-day events, usually on Saturday. (4)The players represent .1/4 to.l/3 of the total tournament sign. up. The remainder play at two or three other public court sites that are reserved for the same event. Above, Photo C: Wood fence at 3009 Middlefield Road near Condo~ini~m~ Left, Photo D: So~.nd barrier at 3009 Middlefield Read nest front entrance and Condo-minium Photo E: So~nd barrier, at St. Mark’~ Church, 600 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto. Attachment C .~uggested Conditions on Tennis Project for Ellsworth Place Natalie Fisher 1 I/6/97 (a) A I0 - 13 foot high sound barrier closely surrounding the tennis courts, situated perhaps where the chain link fences are located rather than at the property ~lines. Mr. Rodkin’s design for a I 0 ft. barrier around the courts might be acceptable (his reports dated |0/29 and 10/30). Note: The barrier must be long enough, and ~Perhaps. curved at. the ends,, ~ to prevent sound, outflanking the ~ ~ ~arrler and turning back towards the neighbors. ~or, if barriers are built along the property lines: (b) for Ellsworth Place: a 13 foot barrier (to be built on the tennis site’s property line) along the creek. It must be long enough and perhaps curved at the~ends so that sound does not outflank the barrier. If the barriers are made Of wood rather than brick or concrete, they must meet the strictest specifications for an effective sound barrier and be properly maintained so as not to lose their effectiveness over time. A brick barrier covered with ivy, as found at St. Mark’s Church on Colorado, would be aesthetically pleasing. Brick is the preferred material. It might actually be more expensive and troublesome in the long run to maintain a wooden barrier. We prefer Mr. Rodkin’s specifications for a barrier over Mr. Pack’s and would like Mr. Rodkin or another City selected sound engineer to oversee the design and construction of the barrier. Also, see #7. :2. .Sound barriers are to be erected prior to other construction. No sound amplification or other mechanical or electronic equipment is to be used at any time; no practice walls or ball throwing machines are to be used. Later startin.g times are desired: no earlier than 9 am ~.veekdays -~nd !0 am Saturdays and holidays. Possibly no tennis played on .~undays to allow one day of quiet for the neighbors. Double locks on entrances with only authorized staff haL~ing entrance prior.to starting times and staff locking up at the end of the day CSI to have someone available at all times to come down personally and identify play:ers violating rules, such as the time restrictions. This person to have a beeper or other means of being reached immediately. Alternatively, CSI to give police permission to identify violators and request this information be forwarded to CSI. A densely landscaped buffer zone (I0 feet wide) to be placed between the courts and the creek, as required in the municipal code. Zoning Code Section I8.32.D7D, Special requirements in the PF poblic facilities district, sobsection (a) (3) (page 1859 of the Municipal Code) requires a ten foot wide landscaped "yard" between a creek and the property line. Also, the Comprehensive Plan states that landscaping increases the effectiveness of sound barriers. No tournaments or league play be conducted at this site. Public courts elsewere are better suited than this tiny site closely surrounded on 3 sides by three different neighborhoods. Greer Park can be finished with the addition of lighted tennis courts that will not impact neighbors. Cubberley also is a site where there are or will be lights for tennis playing. If the City Council insists on the inclusion of tournaments at this site, then we wish to limit the frequency and length. No more than I monthly tournament and I league play per month and none on Sundays or holidays. Spectator- seating: Benches placed by the courts to be used instead of bleachers 10.Meetings betLveen affected neighbors and CSI to be held monthly for a minimum of one year-. Continuation beyond that time to be discussed then. 2 A log tO be kept by CSI of all complaints, including those reported by the police, and how they were resolved. The City to monitor this log on a regula~ basis to be determined by the City staff. 12.Prohibition of special events at the Winter Lodge being scheduled simultaneously with special~events or tournaments at the tennis ¯ courts - in order to prevent additional traffic and parking problems 3 Public Works Department Engineering Division MEMORANDUM Date:November 20, 1997 To," From: Subject: Jim Harrington Mike Nafziger (x3103) ~ iIL~ Soundwall estimates. The following is a listing of estimates for a 10 foot high soundwall: Type of Material Cost Range per Lineal Foot (LF) 1.Concrete block $125 -$175 2.Reinforced Brick $375 -$525 3.Brick Facade $130- $170 4.Wood $80 - $150 Design cost is 10% of total. Con.tingency is 10% of total. Design Life 100 years 100 years 100 years 15 years* SUMMARY Total Cost including Design and Contingency (per LF) 1.Concrete Block $150 - $225 2.Reinforced Brick $450 - $630 3.Brick Facade $156 - $204 4.Wood $96 - $180 Assumptions Wall is 10 feet in height. Costs for materials are slightly higher. "economy of scale" can be used. Due to the size of the job, it is unlikely that * Wood fence will face significant maintenance costs after approximately 15 years, leading to replacement.