Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-06-25 City Council (2)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JUNE 25, 2001 CMR:285:01 SUBJECT:REQUEST BY COMMUNITY SKATING INC., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEN FOOT HIGH SOUND WALL ALONG THE NORTH, WEST, AND EAST PROPERTY LINES AT THE REAR OF THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD. ZONE DISTRICT: PF, PUBLIC FACILITIES. FILE NUMBER: 00-ARB-43. REPORT IN BRIEF The proposed project consists of the construction of a 10 foot high sound wall along the north, west, and east property lines at the rear of the parcel located at 3009 Middlefield Road. The parcel currently contains four tennis courts, which are in poor condition. The proposed sound wall was originally required by the City Council to mitigate the effects of property improvements proposed in 1995, which included the construction of a new fifth tennis court. Although the current project involves only refurbishing the existing four tennis courts, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the 1995 project indicated that increased use of the four courts could still result in noise impacts. In order to reduce those potential impacts, the City Council required that a sound wall be constructed along the north and west property lines. The Council also required that the wall have a surface weight of at least three pounds per square foot and be constructed of either masonry panels, masonry block, or concrete panels. An eight foot high sound wall was also required along the eastern property line, but only if a fifth tennis court were constructed. These conditions survived the subsequent litigation and settlement of environmental disputes. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the project at its May 3, 2001 meeting and recommended denial of the sound wall. The Board was unable to reconcile the design issues involved without significantly increasing the cost of the wall or altering the project beyond the parameters mandated by the City Council. CMR:285:01 Page 1 of 9 The Director. of Planning and Community Environment subsequently approved the project with conditions and the following modifications: The proposed sound wall along the east side property line shall not be approved as a part of the project since a fifth court is not being proposed; and The required 10 foot high sound walls on the north and west sides of the property shall be constructed in the "crown wall" pattern, with .the articulated side of the wall facing the neighboring properties. Because the Director does not agree with the recommendation of the ARB, the project must be forwarded to the City Council for action pursuant to PAMC Section 16.48.080. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, as follows: Approve the application for construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the north and west property lines at 3009 Middlefield Road, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment A; and o Deny the application for construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the east property line at 3009 Middlefield Road. BACKGROUND The proposed project site is a flag shaped lot with frontage on Middlefield Road. The lot is currently occupied by four tennis courts, which are located at the northeast corner of the property. The courts are surrounded by chain link fencing. The site is bounded to the north by residences on Price Court, to the west by Matadero Canal, to the east by condominiums and the Winterlodge Ice Rink, and to the south by a gas station and an existing paved parking lot. Matadero Canal is fully channelized in this location, and residences exist on the far side of the canal along Ellsworth Place. The City of Palo Alto owns the subject property. The City gave Community Skating Inc. (the operators of the Winterlodge Ice Rink) an exclusive option to lease the property for the purpose of constructing improvements and operating a recreational tennis facility. The original option agreement was dated June 20, 1995, and required that Community Skating Inc. apply for and receive all necessary City approvals for property improvements prior to signing a lease with the City. In 1995, Community Skating Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to make substantial improvements to the property, including constructing a fifth tennis court. One of the main concerns expressed by neighboring property owners during the conditional use permit CMR:285:01 Page 2 of 9 process was that the facility could generate significant amounts of noise if fully utilized. After City review of 11 acoustical studies, the City Council placed a condition of approval on the project that required the construction of a 10 foot high sound wall along the north and west property lines to mitigate any potential noise impacts associated with the operation of the tennis courts. An eight foot sound wall was also required along the eastern property line, but only if a fifth tennis court were constructed. The sound wall was required to be constructed of either masonry panels, masonry block, or concrete panels, be airtight, and have a surface weight of at least three pounds per square foot. The City Council also agreed to reimburse Community Skating Inc., for up to on~-half the cost of the required sound wall, not to exceed $50,000. The project approval resulted in three separate lawsuits being filed against the City (two were subsequently dismissed).The final lawsuit against the City was settled in August, 1999. As a part of the settlement agreement, Community Skating Inc. agreed not to develop a fifth tennis court on the property. The settlement agreement also gave Community Skating Inc. the option of simply refurbishing the existing four tennis courts and continuing to operate under a previous use permit for the site. Because Community Skating Inc. has chosen to operate under the previous use permit, the 1995 Conditional Use Permit requiring the sound wall was never issued. On December 18, 2000, the City Council approved an amendment to the option agreement that allowed Community Skating Inc. to sign a lease with the City once construction drawings were submitted for a sound wall. The sound wall was described in the option amendment as follows: "... the lO-foot perimeter sound wall, which shall be constructed from any of the following materials: masonry panel; masonry block; or concrete panels and which shall be constructed in an airtight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbs. per square foot". Construction drawings for the sound wall were submitted to the Building Division on March 28, 2001. The proposed placement of the wall is shown in the plans appended to this report (Attachment H). A lease was subsequently signed by the City and Community Skating Inc. on April 20, 2001. DISCUSSION Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sound wall, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) was required to review the project and make a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The ARB reviewed the proposed project at a public hearing held on May 3, 2001. CMR:285:01 Page 3 of 9 Several members of the public spoke at the hearing and raised issues regarding the potential impacts of the sound wall and/or the increased use of the existing tennis courts. These issues included the following: ¯The concern that proposed tree replacement ratios would not be sufficient to mitigate the loss of mature trees and shrubs that would result from the construction of the sound wall; ¯The opinion that the Winterlodge cannot legally operate under the existing 1977 Use Permit; ¯The opinion that the sound wall requires a variance because it exceeds the fence height limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC); ¯The concern that the sound wall on the Price Court (northern) side of the property would substantially lessen pr.operty values and block scenic backyard views; ¯-The concern that the sound wall on the condominium (eastern) side of the property would not effectively mitigate sound for the second and third story condominiums and would create a prison-like visual effect; and ¯The opinion that the sound wall should be lengthened all the way to Middlefield Road on the east side of the property to further protect residents on the opposite side of Matadero Canal. Issues raised that were unrelated to the sound wall construction included concerns about nighttime lighting of the existing tennis courts, the potential for tournament play, and noise from the existing Winterlodge Ice Rink loudspeakers and zamboni machine. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ARB recommended denial of the proposed sound wall to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Board was unable to recommend approval of the project because it could not reconcile the design issues involved without significantly increasing the cost of the wall or altering the project beyond the parameters mandated by the City Council. Verbatim minutes from. the May 3, 2001 ARB hearing and the associated staff report are attached to this report (Attachments D and C, respectively). The ARB staff report includes correspondence that was received by the Planning Division prior to the ARB hearing. Correspondence received subsequent to the ARB heating is included as Attachment G to this report. The Director of Planning and Community Environment differs with the ARB’s recommendation for denial of the sound wall, and has therefore approved the. project with the following modifications: The proposed sound wall along the east side property line shall not be approved as a part of the project because a fifth court is not proposed; and CMR:285:01 Page 4 of 9 The required 10 foot high sound walls on the north and west sides of the property shall be constructed in the "crown wall" pattem, with the articulated side of the wall facing the neighboring properties (a photo of the crown wall is appended to this report as Attachment F). The Director’s approval of the project is also subject to the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A, which have been modified since the ARB review to include the following conditions: 2a.No approval for a sound wall on the east side (condominium side) of the property shall be given as a part of this application. 2b.The required 10 foot high sound walls on the north and west sides of the property shall be constructed in the "crown wall" pattern, with the articulated side of the wall facing the neighboring properties. 2C.The height of the sound wall panels shall be 10 feet as measured from existing grade and shall vary no more than three inches to allow for slope variations on the site. The decorative caps topping the wall posts may extend up to eight inches above the top surface of the highest adjacent wall panel. Because the Director differs with the recommendation of the ARB, the project must be forwarded to the City Council for action pursuant to PAMC Section 16.48.080. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the 10 foot sound wall along the north and west property lines. The approved "crown wall" is very similar in construction to the sound wall design reviewed by the ARB. The wall is proposed to be constructed using pre-fabricated integral color concrete panels. The proposed drilled pier construction allows for minimal disturbance of existing tree roots. The wall posts are proposed to be spaced at a maximum of 20 feet from one another and placed to accommodate selected existing trees. Although the scope of improvements on the project site has since been modified to refurbishing the existing four tennis courts, the original Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicated that increased use of the four courts could still result in noise impacts. In order to reduce those potential impacts to a less than significant level, the City Council required that a sound wall of the proposed specifications be constructed along the north and west property lines. This Council direction was reaffirmed by both the December 18, 2000 approval of the amendment to Community Skating Inc.’s option agreement and the lease between the City and Community Skating Inc. CMR:285:01 Page 5 of 9 The lease also affirms the City’s commitment to reimburse Community Skating Inc. for one- half of the cost of the sound wall, not to exceed $50,000. The Director of Planning and Community Environment did not approve the proposed sound wall along the eastem property fine adjacent to the three story condominium project because it was not identified as necessary to mitigate noise from the increased use of the four existing tennis courts. RESOURCE IMPACT The City Council has agreed to reimburse Community Skating Inc. for up to one-half the cost of the required sound wall, in an amount not to exceed $50,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed sound wall is consistent with prior Council action. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed sound wall was originally required to mitigate the effects of property improvements proposed in 1995. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is attached to this report (Attachment B). The mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified both the need for the sound wall and the potential environmental impacts that could result if the sound wall were constructed. Because the sound wall’s potential .for environmental impacts has already been analyzed in an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, no subsequent Negative Declaration is required for the project (per Section 15162 of the State of California Public Resources Code). The areas of potential sound wall impact identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration include the breezes and updrafts that could be created by the placement of the wall on the northern property fine, the loss of trees that would result from the construction of the project (including, but not limited to, trees that would be removed to accommodate the sound wall), and the visual and shadowing impacts of the sound wall on adjacent properties. These issues are discussed individually in the paragraphs that follow. Although drainage of the 3009 Middlefield property was not identified as an area of potential environm~p.t.al impact, a discussion of the issue is included in this section due to previously raised neighborhood concerns. Impacts to Air Movement The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that a 10 foot high sound wall along the northern property, fine will create updrafts and breezes on adjacent residential properties that are not currently experienced on those sites. Similar impacts are not expected to result from the construction of a sound wall on the eastern and western property fines. This is due to the fact that residences to the west are separated from the site by Matadero Canal and a Santa Clara CMR:285:01 Page 6 of 9 Valley Water District easement, and residences to the east will be buffered from air movement impacts by existing plant materials. To mitigate air movement impacts on the northern side of the property, a stepped screen of plant material was required on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" was required to consist of two rows of plant material. It. was further specified the row of plantings closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half the height of the sound wall and the row of plantings closest to the sound wall shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). This mitigation measure has been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval for the project (Attachment A). A landscape plan depicting these plantings would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff would be assisted in this endeavor by a landscape architect from the firm of Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey, who is under contract with the City. Loss of Trees The Mitigated Negative Declaration also identifies the potential for an impact on biological resources due to the proposed removal of mature trees. To mitigate this potential impact, a mitigation measure was placed on the project requiring the applicant to replace all trees removed to accommodate the design of the project or the required sound walls at the edges of the site. It further states that a general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline for tree replacement. Twelve trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the wall. The most significant of these removals would be the removal of a row six Italian Cypress trees that exist along the northern property line. The City’s Planning Arborist has placed a condition of approval on the project that the Italian Cypress trees be replaced on a 1:1 ratio with three 24-inch box and three 36-inch box size Coast Redwood trees. The 1:1 replacement ratio is considered appropriate due to the large size of the replacement trees. The six other trees to be removed shall also be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with five 15 gallon Coast Redwood trees of the above varieties and one 24-inch box size Chinese Pistache, two 24-inch box size Maiden Hair Ginko, and four 15 gallon or 24" box size Chinese Tallow trees. The placement of the replacement trees must be approved by the City’s Planning Arborist. These specifications have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project, and must be shown on the required landscape plan. Four Italian Cypress trees are also proposed to be removed from the interior of the site. However, these removals are not necessitated by the construction of the sound wall. CMR:285:01 Page 7 of 9 Visual Impacts Finally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration recognizes the potential for the sound wall to have significant aesthetic impacts on the adjacent properties. Because the walls will be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the walls will be similar to freeway sound walls. To reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level, a mitigation measure was adopted that required the panels of all sound walls on the site to be broken up through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The mitigation measure also suggests that the panels may be offset to break up the flat, vertical surface. However, offsetting the panels would create inaccessible pockets of City land that could not be maintained. Therefore, staff does not support offsetting the wall panels. Staff does support articulating and banding the wall maferial. In addition, the Mitigated Negative Declaration contains a discussion regarding the potential for shadowing of adjacent properties on the northern and western sides of the site by the proposed sound walls. The sound walls in these locations will cast shadows over most of the yards and onto the actual structures on adjacent properties for a majority of the year. Although this impact appears significant, it is not substantially greater than the impact of a standard six foot high fence in the same location. It should also be noted that the proposed 10 foot high sound walls will cast substantially less shadow on adjacent properties than the 25 foot tall trees currently on the subject property and neighboring sites. Because the shadowing impact of the sound wall is not considered potentially significant, no related mitigation measures were required. Drainage A grading and drainage plan for the project must be submitted with the building permit plans and reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sound wall. Any existing drainage from adjacent properties is .required to be maintained. The 50 year overland storm path must also be determined and suitable release points and mechanisms approved by the Public Works Director and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. CMR:285:01 Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENTS A. Conditions of Project Approval B. Mitigated Negative Declaration C. ARB Staff Report dated May 3, 2001 D. Verbatim Minutes of the May 3, 2001, ARB Meeting E. Photo of originally proposed sound wall F. Photo of approved "crown wall" G. Correspondence received after May 3, 2001 H. Plans (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Rachel Adcox, Se~ DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~RRIsoN Assistant City Manager Linda Jensen, Winterlodge, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Jack Hsu, 3048 Price Ct., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tom Meadows, 3073 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei Wang, 3054 Price Ct., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Natalie Fisher and John Abrahams, 736 Ellsworth P1., Palo Alto, CA 94306 Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield Road, Unit 203, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Claire Gerber, 2182 St. Francis Dr., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Keith Slipper, 3060 Price Ct., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Lindley Frahm, 664 Wellsbury Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Martin Wetterhom, 3077 Middlefield Rd. #204, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:285:01 Page 9 of 9 Attachment A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3009 Middlefield Road / File No. 00-ARB-43 o The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated October 5, 2000, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. Conditions related to Planning issues ao No approval for a sound wall on the east side (condominium side) of the property shall be given as a part of this application. No The required 10 foot high sound walls on the north and west sides of the property shall be constructed in the "crown wall" pattern, with the articulated side of the wall facing the neighboring properties. Co The height of the sound wall panels shall be 10 feet as measured from existing grade and shall vary no more than three inches (3") to allow for slope variations on the site. The decorative caps topping the wall posts may extend up to eight inches (8") above the top surface of the highest adjacent wall panel. do The sound wall shall be constructed in an airtight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbs. per square foot. Conditions relating to Arborist issues go A landscaping plan with the below noted plantings shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Division staff prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sound wall: The six (6) Italian Cypress trees to be removed shall be replaced on a 1:1 ratio with three (3) 24-inch box and three (3) 36-inch box size Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood). Varieties ’Aptos Blue, ’Los Altos’ or ’Simpsons Silver’ are to be specified. The six (6) other trees to be removed shall also be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with five (5) 15 gallon Coast Redwood trees of the above varieties and one (1) 24-inch box size Chinese Pistache, two (2) 24-inch box size Maiden Hair Ginko, and four (4) 15 gallon or 24" box size Chinese Tallow trees. The placement of the replacement trees must be approved by the Managing Arborist. Trees shall be irrigated with bubbler- head fittings. 3009 Middlefield Road Page 1 A st~pped screen of plant material shall be planted and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" shall consist of two rows of plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half of the height of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall itself shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). 4.Conditions relating to Building issues a.A survey shall be required to establish property line location prior to construction. b.A building permit will be required for the proposed sound wall. 5.Conditions relating to Public Works Engineering issues Provide with Building Permit Submittal ao A plan must be provided showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. Existing drainage from adjacent properties must be maintained. The drainage patterns must be shown in the building permit plan submittal. The 50 year overland storm path must also be determined and suitable release points and mechanisms approved by the Public Works Director and the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of a building permit. b.Identify and show all easements on the property on the building permit plan submittal. During Construction Co 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 at the contractor’s expense. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. do The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) 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 BMPs with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any 3009 Middlefield Road Page 2 construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, waste materials into gutters or storm drains. Conditions relating to Utilities/Engineering Electrical issues ao etc.) or other During wall construction, the contractor will locate all utilities to safeguard from possible damage. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\winterlodge COAs.doc 3009 Middlefield Road Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Attachment B Project Title:Tennis Center (Former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center) Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenuei Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator (650) 329-2561 Project Location: /kpplication Number(s): 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 96-UP-1, 98-EIA-6 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Community Skating Inc. (Linda Jensen), 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 General Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facilities Zoning:Public Facilities (PF) Description of the Project: Community Skating Inc., operators of the Winterlodge skating facility, propose to develop the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis facility for use as a tennis facility, The development includes re-orientation of two existing tennis courts, resurfacing of two existing courts, construction of one additional court and construction-of a passive park area, restroom facilities, and related site improvements including additional parking and parking area landscaping. The project, would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would include resuffacing the four existing tennis courts, parking lot in~provements, landscaping in the passive park area and construction of restroom faci!’.,.t~.es. Phase two would include construction ofthe fifth tennis court. The project requires a conditional use permit for operation of an outdoor-recreation service (tennis facility), and Architectural Review. Board (ARB) approval for the proposed site improvements. P:\EIA\E1A.MST [211/96],Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 10. 11. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site currently contains four tennis courts, in poor but functional condition. In addition, the sit~ contains an area that previously contained a swimming pool, which has been removed. The site abuts a channelized section of Matadero Creek. The front (south) property.line abuts the V!interlodge skating facility and an automotive service station. Single-family houses border the property’s north and west property lines and a multiple-family. condotninium complex borders the east property line. Other public ~gencies whose aPproval is required: The Santa Clara Valley Water District will require the applicant to olstain permits for construction within 50 feet of the creek bank and for any change in storm drair~age affecting, existing outfalls into the creek.- S: \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLiST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, X Land use and Plar~ning PoPulation and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation X X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems X Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance S.\plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g ENVIRONMENTAL CHE CKLIS T FORM DETERMINATION: On the basis Of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wlll be prepared. 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added .to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Wi!l be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY. have a significant effectls) on the environment, but at least one effect (I) has been adequately analyzed in an.eariier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, an~l 12) has been addresse’d by mitigation meas~Jres 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 IMPACTREPORT 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, X t Planner.Date ’ ’ Director of Planning & Community Environment Date S :\plan\pl adi v\-ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6~ 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 preject 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 le. g. the proiect 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, cumutative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Poten.tially 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 E~R 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." Ti~e lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect tq a less than significant ~evel (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 e (3) {D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklistl ’ Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate ir~to the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts .{e,g. general plans, zoning ordinances), Reference to a.previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or. pages where the statemen{ is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individqals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a.suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones, S.\plan\Pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Slgn~flc~nt Unless Mit{gatlon Incorporated Less Than SignHicant Impact 1. LAND USE/kND PLANNING, Would the proposah a} Cenflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) ~onflict with appticable environmental plans 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)? Disrupt or divide the l~hysical arrangement of an established community {including a low-income or minority community}?. 1 1 POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the prop0sal: X × X Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)induce substantial growth in an area either directly or c) indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,6 X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d} Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? . e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? . g} Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? ¯ I) Unique geologic or.physica}..features? 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3~7 2,3,7 2,3,6, 7 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 2,3,7 X X X X X S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g Issues a~d Supporting Information Sources P otent~a[[y Significant |ssLI es Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation ]ncorporated Less Than Sign~f{cant Impact WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and arnount of surface runoff? - b) Exposure.of people or property ;~o water related hazards such as flooding? c]Discharge in~:o surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, includiqg but not limited to temperature,, dissolved oxygen, .turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. Sediment and debris fror~ 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, !,p,,,,marine or fr~s~wa,ter, or wetlar~ds? ....... 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? Alteration of wetlands in any way? 7,81B- ¯ 7,8(B- 7) 7,8(S- 7) 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 X X ,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 se.n~itive receptors to pollutants ..... c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ca0se any change in climate? X S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Ilssues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Issues PotentlalIy Significant Unless Incorporated Lass Than Significant Impact d) Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would theproposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazardsto safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses [e.g. farm equipment})? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to n.earby uses? 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18. 5,10, 18 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ! e}-H~~ards or.barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? "’~f) -Confl,~’;s w,th adopted pol,c,es supporl,ng alte’r~n~t, ve"’ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). l g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7,BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: Endangered, threatened or rare species .or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?¯ Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat [e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 6,8(B- 12) - 6,8(B- 1 2) 6,8(B- 12) 1 2) 6,8[B- 12) X X × X "X X. X X c) ~Vildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL REsouRCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict w,th adopt.ed energy, conservation plans?X S’ \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Significant Unless Mit~gatlon incorporated Less Than Impact b} Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in tl~e loss of availability of a known mineral resource that-would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:. 11 11 A risk of accidental explosion .sr release of hazardo’us .substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation p[an? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? le) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, .... grass of t~ees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a} Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe nois6 levels? 5,8(B- 8,B-9) 5,12, 13,14- 5,8,( B-8,B- 9)15 t8 (B-8 B-9), 15 5,12 8(B- 4),16, 20,21 8(B- 4), 20,21 11.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services In any of the following areas: X X X X X a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? i .~!.. Schools? 12 14 5 X X X S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentiatly Significant Issues Signffica.nt Sign~ficant pa U n|e ss Imp act ~V~it~g at~on Incorporated d)Maintenance of p.ublic facilities, including roads or 13 X stsrm drain facilities? e) Other gov~rnm.ental services? ~ 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for.new systems or supplies, or substantial alteratipns to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) .Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d), Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water dralnage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? ~,,! Local or regional water supplies? 5 5,13 5 5 X 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? 5,6 22,23 5,6 X X X X X X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential imp..ect area? .......... 6,8 (B-13) 6,8 (S-1 4) X X (B-14) X S :\p~ an\pl ad~ v\e~ a\3009mnd2. I g Issues and ,Supporting Information Sources Potentiatly Signlf~cant Issues Poten~ia[[y Significant Unless Mitigation {ncorporated Less Than Sign~lcant Impact 15, RECREATION. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neig.hborhood or regional parks or other .recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 5,6 16. MANDA’I’ORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. X a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate " a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restr{ct the rangeof a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cat{iornia history or prehistor~? b) Does the project ha.ve the potential to achieve short-term, .to !he disad.yantage,.of..Io,ng-term, environmenta!....goals? c) Does the project have impacts that at,e, individually limited, but,,cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects-of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ’d)Does the project have environmental effects which Will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or in..directly? ........... 19 19 19 "X .19 X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. EarJier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effect have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ~ {3) (D). In this case 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 a~ adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effec- ¯ were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. S" \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant |ss~es Potentially Unless Incorporated /La~s Than Impact c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures .which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent.to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authori.ty: Public Resobrces Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080,3, 21082=1, 21083, 21-083.3, 21093. 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v, County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervfsors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). SOURCE REFERENCES Pale &Ire Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Land Use map (1981-1995), land use element (1981 ), Urban Design element (1981) and Environmental Resources Element (1981). Required compliance with Uniform Building Code standards for seismic safety. Pale Alto. Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report,.1994. Public Facilities [PF) Zone District Regulations (Section 18.32 Pa~o Alto Municipal Code) Review of plans and specifications subm{tted with application. Field investigations/site v{sits Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan 980-1995; Environmental Resources Element. Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps 8-1, B-4, B-6, 9 Pale alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Report, pages 15-30; 1994. 0 =ale Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, ½ransportation Element; 1981 1 Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 50-61, 1981 2 City of Pale Alto Fire Department, written comments on application; 4/10/96. 3 City of Pale Alto Department of Public Works, written comments on application; 4/16f96. 4 City of Pale Alto Police Department, written comments on.application; 419196. and 4/30196. 5 City of Pale 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 Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element; 1981 S \p I an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and .Supporting Information Sources Potent~a|[y Significant Unless Mi~Jgat~on [ncorporatec[ S|gn~cant pa 18 IMemOrandiJm from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division; July 22, 1996 19 Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items 1-1 8 and 20-23. 20 Supplemental Acoustical Analyses prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.; 418196, 1/15/97, and 6/12/97 21 Acoustica! Analyses prepared by I~lingworth an~l Rodkin inc.; 4/16/97, 6/’12/97, 10129197, and 10/30/97. 22 Supplementa~ information provided by DEVA De~{gns (for CSI Inc.}, regarding air movement, shadow l~atterns and visual impa~ts; 2/13/98 and 4/9/98. 23 Letter from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey; 3/10/98 S: \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentlaliy Significant M|tlgat~an Incorporated Less Than Significant 19. 3 lb,~, g) £XPLAI~A’I’IONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES Geo(ogic Problems. (a,b, C, d} 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 end subsidence of the land is possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building code (UBC), portions of.which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. MitioatiQn: None required. Waterl The project site is located in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. The 100 year flood zone is contained within the banks of Matadero Creek, but the site is within the 500 year flood zone. During construction activities, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to Matadero Creek and the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris are a source of this pollution. With the City’s required conditions of approval, .the water impacts of the project will not be a significant impact and by project completion, there will be a minimal amount of additional runoff from l~he site because of a slig.ht increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing~use. The standard conditions of approvat will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent pi’operties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Mitiqation: None required. S" \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2, i g t Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Signlf{cant Issues Unless Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a,c) Air O,uality. The sound walls r~quired as mitigation for potential noise impacts will have potentially significant impacts on air movement unless mitigated [see disqussion under 10 (a}, Noise, below for further detail on potential noise impac.ts.and rr{itigation). The ten foot high wall along the narthern property line will create updrafts and breezes on adjacent residential properties that are not .currently experienced on those sites. A stepped screen of plant material on the tennis facility side of the wall will substantially reduce the updrafts and breezes. The breezes and updrafts created by the ten foot high wall along the western edge of the s~te will not impact residences on the opposite Side of Matadero Creek because the breezes and drafts will dissipate prior to reaching those properties. The updrafts and breezes created by an eight foot high wall on the eastern property line, if Phase Two is constructed, wilt be mitigated by the existing plant materials on each side of the.wall. The project would also result in temporary dust emissions during grading and other construction activities. The standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to a less than significant.level. The standard conditions of project approval will require that the following dust control measures be employed: 1) Exposed earth surfaces be watered, increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shaft be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by t~he contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. A condition of project approval will also require the sound walls along the north property line and western edge of the site to be constructed before the rest of the Phase One improvements so that dust and noise impacts on neighboring properties will be minimized during construction. All mitigation measures listed below will also be incorporated as conditions of use permit approval for the proposed project. Mitlqa,tiq,.n: 5.(a) 1.A stepped screen of plant materia~ shall be.planted and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" shall consist of two rowsof plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half the height of the sound wall and the row.closest to the wall itself shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall}. 5.(a) 2. The final selection of plant material for the "green screen" shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist and by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). 5.(a) 3, The screen shall be located in a manner consistent with the Conceptual plans submitted by DEVA Designs, dated 2/13/98, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. S: \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially I Potentially Significant S~gnlflc~nt issues ¯Unless Mitlgatlon Incorporated Less Then Impact TransportationlCirculation. The total number of new trips for the five-court facility will be 140 daily weekday trips, with 12 occuring d~ring the evening peak hour and a maxim;Jm of 160 new trips on Sundays. The new fifth tenn{s court will account for 33 of the 140 new daily weekday trips, three of the 12 new evening peak hour trips and 38 of the 160 new trips on Sunday,The Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment reviewed the project and determined that the additionat trips could be absorbed by the surrounding street network and would not be noticeable to nearby residents or create a significant impact. The proposed tennis facility and the existing skating facility, which shares the project site, require a total of 89 on-site parking spaces, seven of which are required for.the tennis facility. With the addition of 30 parking spaces at the front o’f the site, as required by the conditional use permit for the skating facility expansion, the number of on-site parking spaces totals 98. The proposed parking facilities would be adequate to accommodate the tennis and skating facilities without significant impact on street parking or other parking facilities in the area provided that special events are not held simultaneously for both the Winterlodge and the tennis facility. The mitigation measure below prohibits special events from occurring simultaneously for both facilities. This mitigation .measure will also become a condition of use permit approval. Mit aatio..o: 6. (d)4.To ensure that there is sufficient parking on-site, the tennis facility she# not hold special events or have todrnament play at the Same time special events are being held at the Winterlodge. S .\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2, l g Issues and Supporting Information Sources lssue~Un|ess In corp orated Less Than Significant Impact Biological Resources. No endangered, threatened, or rare animal, insect or plant species have been identified on the project site. The project arborist’s report indicates that there are 1 8 existing trees located on the project site. The applicant intends to remove a total of ten of these existing trees. Noneof the trees proposed for removal are protected by the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation and Maintenance Ordinance, however all ten trees are mature landscape features on .the site. Five trees would be removed because of conflict with the 3roject design or the health of adjacent trees. Of these five trees,two are in poor condition, two are in fair . condition and one is in good condition. An additional five trees may need to be removed to accommodate the required sound walls on the site (see discussion under 10{al Noise below for further detail on potential noise impacts and mitigation). Two of these five trees are Cedrus deodora located along the western edge of the site in the parking area and are in good condition. Two of the five trees are Cupressus sempervirens located along the norhern prop, arty ~ine and are in fair condition. The fifth of these five trees is an Ulmus parvifolia located along the eastern property line and is in fair condition. As noted in discussion 10 la), Noise, below, the required sound waUs on the site will be equally effective in mitigating noise impacts whether constructed of wood or masonry materials. Both types of materials will achieve the same level of acoustical attenuation. Sound walls of either material can be constructed using a )ost beam construction technique. The supporting posts can be hand-dug to avoid root zones, which willresult in less potential impact on existin# trees. Using this type of construction technique may result in the retention of some of the trees that would need to be removed if different construction techniques were used. Wooden w.alls wit~, however, have less impact on the surrounding micro-climate because they will not retain or reflect as much heat as masonry walls and will not change surrounding air flow as noticeably. in addition to the above trees, the Department of Public Works Arborist recommends removal of three existing parking lot trees because of their "brittle nature", and replacement with a suitable parking species. The applicant proposes to plan.t five new trees, groundcover and shrubbery in the passive pa~k area at the rear of the project site. The City generafly uses a 2:1 replacement ratio for aft trees removed from a project site. The number of trees removed from this site will be partiafly dependent upon the construction technique used to build the required sound walls. The number, species and location of replacement trees will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division Arborist as well as by the ARB, In addition, the applicant will be required to replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species subject to review and approval of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. Mitigation: 7.(a}5.The applicant shall replace all trees removed to accommodate the design of the.project or the required sound walls at the edgesof the site. A general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline ¯ for tree replacement. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant /Potent|ally | Less Than Significant "t Sign~flcant Unless |.mpact Incorp orated (con} I ’ 7,(a} 7. The applicant shall replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species. The location and s~e~ies of all required replacement trees shall be subject to the review and approval-of the City of Palo alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and .Supporting Information Sources Potentially Stgnlfiaant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant -Significant Uni~ss .Impact Mit~g atio n . Incorporated I0 Noise, The eight acoustical analyses prepared for thls project (sources 16, 20, and 21 ) compare the proposed tennis facility use to the City of Pa[o Alto Noise Ordinance for uses on public property adjacent to residential properties (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). The ordinance sets a noise limit of 5 dB above the existing ambient condition.at each site property line. The ambient is defined as the lowest sound level repeating during a six minute period, but not less than 40 dBA. This standard was used as the threshold to determine significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. The ambient noise levels at the property lines were measured and found to be 41dBA. The acoustical analysis, dated October 29, 1997, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., the acoustical consultant hired by the City of Palo Alto, and concurred with by the project sponsor’s acoustical consultant, Edward L. Pack Associates, recommends:.construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the northern property line; a ten foot high sound wall along the western edge of the site, at the edge of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement; and either a fourteen foot acoustical barrier along the eastern ¯ property line or a ten foot high acoustical barrier atong the eastern edge of court number 5. The City’s acoustical consultant confirmed that a sound wall would not be required along the eastern property line or along the edge of the fifth court if t~e fifth tennis court is not buUt. A facility with four tennis courts, as shown on the applicant’s proposed development plan, requires sound walls only along the north property fine and western edge of the site. During discussions at City Counc# meetings, it was suggested that an eight foot h. ighseund waft could be l~cated along the eastern property line if the fifth court was constructed. The acoustical analysts noted that exceedence of noise levels along the eastern property line could be dependent upon the age and comparative strength of the players on court number 5, which is located closest to the eastern property line. The final analysis, dated October 30, 1997 recommended continued monitoring of the use of the fifth tennis court, [fit is built, to determine if there is substantial exceedance of the noise ordinance as a result of play on that court. In the event that there are continued violations, operational restrictions could be o/aced upon use of the fifth court, such as limiting play to players under a specific age, or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court could be required such as construction of a sound wall. Since the construction of the fifth court is not anticipated until Phase Two of the project, mitigation measures associated with that court are listed below under Phase Two Mitigation. The final acoustical analy.4is, dated October 30, 1997 recommends any of the following materials as equally effective for acoustical attenuation: masonry panels, masonry block, wood or concrete panels. These materials constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbs. per square foot will brihg noise levels down to 56 dBA, which meets noise ordinance standards. Mitiqati.09: Phase One Mitigation: 10.[a) 8.The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tigh~ acoustical sound wall along the northern property line. 10,(a) 9. The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound S: \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2, l g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation (contd wall elong the western edge of the site, a{ong the border of the Santa Clara ValleY/Water District easement. lO.(a) 10. Any of the following materials may be used to construct theabove required sound walls: masonry panels; masonry block; wood; or concrete panels. Al! sound walls shell be constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 Ibs. per square foot. 10.(a) 11.Final design of Phase One sound walls shaft be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and shall use pier and grade beam construction techniques for the footings and foundations, Phase Two Mitigation: Ifa fifth court is constructed on the "site, the operator of the facility shaU construct an eight foot high air tight acoustical sound waff along the eastern property line using the same materials, design and construction technique as used for th~ sound walls on the north property line. and western edge of the site. The operator of the tennis facility shall monitor noise levels at a distance of 25 feet from the eastern property line for the first year of operation after construction 5f the fifth tennis court end eight foot high sound wall. Acoustical measurements shall be taken 25 feet from the e~stern property line 12 times a year which shall include, as a minimum, monitoring during tournaments, on Saturdays or during other .times when increased activity exists. These readings shall be conducted on an unennounced basis and shall be funded by the operator of the facility. Results of these reedings she~I be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. At anytime during or after the first year of operation, after construction of the fifth tennis court and 8 foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall have euthority to order independent noise monitoring at the applicant’s expense. ! 0.. (a) 14. 10.la) 1 5. If any violation of noise ordinance stendards occurs during the first year of operation after construction of the fifth tennis, court and eight foot high sound wall, the Z6ning Administrator shall schedule a use permit hearing for the project in order to consider either operational restrictions on the use of the fifth court or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court. If a noise ordinance violation is shown, the Zoning Administrator shall order the use permit amended to require construction of the 14 foot wall along the eastern edge of the property line unless the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that an alternative noise mitigation will be effective. The 14 foot height may" be achieved by constructing a six foot extension of a similar material to the other sound walls on the site onto the eight foot high sound waft. Final design of a sound wall constructed as part of Phase Two, and modifications made to the wall during, or immediately after, the first year of operation of Phase Two, shall be r~viewed by the Architectural Review Board, S \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources P otent|ally Signiflc~nt Significant Signlflcant tmpact Unless Impact Incorporated . 11 I 12 (e) Public Services. CurrenUy, maintenance of the existing tennis courts is the responsibility of the City of Palo A~to. 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. Mitlqatlon: None required. Utilities and Service Systems. In addition to the proposed upgrades to tennis facilities and construction of a new passive park area, the app|icant proposes to regrade .the site and construct a new storm water drainage system which would resolve a long-standing drainage problem on the subject site. The applicant will be required to obtain approval of the gradi.ng and drainage plan from the Santa Clara Valley Water district as well as the City’s Public Works Department. Mitiqat,ion; None required. S : \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2.1 g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Souroe~Potentially Issues Potentially Stgnlficant Unless Mitigatlon In corpor ated Less Than Significant Impact 15 Aestheti cs. Overall, the proposed tennis facility will improve the appearance of the project site. The applicant intends to. develop a passive park facility on the site of the abandoned pool and gym. The tennis courts will be reoriented and resurfaced, existing light poles and fixtures will be removed and perimeter landscaping and the parking area will be upgraded. The ten foot high sound walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site as well as the eight foot high wall along the eastern property line, should Phase Two be constructed, have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts on the adjacent residential properties. The height of the walls has the 3otential to result in a fortress-like appearance to the property. As the wails will be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the wails will be similar to that of freeway sound wails. The visual impact can b.e reduced to a less ¯than significant level by breaking-up the. final design through articulation of the panels with texture an~l banding. The panels could also be off-set slightly to break-up the-flat vertical surface, In addition.to the visual impacts, the walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site .will caste shadows over most.of the yards and onto the actual structures of the adjacent property for a majority of the year (see analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 2/13/98), Although this impact appears significant, it is not substantially greater than the impact of a standard six foot high fence in the same location as the required ten foot high sound wa~ls (see analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 4/9/98). There is no threshold or established standard for the amount of sunlight needed or expected in a residential backyard, however, the impact of the ten foot high sound wails could be reduced by including panels of glass block or other transparent material on the upper two feet of the wails, creating "windows" for light. The design of these panels could include detailing, such as fenestration or framing to avoid a tacked-on appearance. The use of glass block or other transparent material could be made a condition of use permit approval for the project. Mitigation: 13.(b)16.The panels of all sound wa~lis on the site shall be broken-up through articulation of the panels with texture arid banding, The panels may be off-set to break-up the flat vertical surface. 13.(b)17,The final design of the sound walls, and other walls on the site, shall be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. The review shall occur by the Board and shall not be delegated to pianning division staff, 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. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2,1g WE, THE LINDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION D~kTED f ........ ~L0- ~ ~" R ~ ..........PREPARED FO~ THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED.HEREIN. Applicant’s Signatut Date. S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2. I g Attachment C Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: May 3, 2001 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Rachel Adcox, Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 3009 Middlefield Road [00-ARB-43]: Request by Winterlodge, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the north, west and east property lines at the rear of the parcel. Zoning District: PF PuNic Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of the proposed project, based upon the findings in Attachment A and subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment B. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The proposed project site is a flag shaped lot with frontage on Middlefield Road. The lot is currently occupied by a 44 space parking lot and four tennis courts. The parking lot is located toward the front of the lot near Middlefield road, and the tennis courts are located to the rear of the lot. The courts are surrounded by chain link fencing. The site is bounded to the north by residences, to the west by Matadero Canal, to the east by condominiums and the Winterlodge Ice Rink, and to the south by a gas station. Matadero Canal is fully channelized in this location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the construction of a 10 foot high sound wall along the north property line and the rear portions of the east and west property lines, as required by the City Council. The wall would be constructed entirely on the project site, leaving all existing fencing on abutting sites in place. The wal! is proposed to be constructed in the pattem shown in the attached photosimulation (Attachment C). The wall posts are proposed to be spaced at a maximum of 17 feet from one another and placed to accommodate selected existing trees. The spacing of posts and design of 3009 Middlefield Road Page 1 the wall are detailed in the letter from Mami Barnes, the landscape architect for the proposed project (Attachment D). A grading and drainage plan for the project must be submitted with the building permit plans and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit- for the sound wall. The existing drainage from adjacent properties is required to be maintained. BACKGROUND While the City of Palo Alto owns the property, the City has given Community Skating Inc. (the operators of the Winterlodge Ice Rink) an exclusive option to lease the property for the purpose of constructing improvements and operating a recreational tennis facility. The original option agreement was dated June 20, 1995, and required that Community Skating Inc. apply for and receive all necessary City approvals for property improvements prior to signing a lease with the City. In 1995, Community Skating Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to make substantial improvements to the property, including constructing a fifth tennis court. The project was " extremely controversial and resulted in three separate lawsuits being filed against the City (two were subsequently dismissed). One of the main concerns expressed by neighboring property owners during the conditional use permit process was that the facility could generate significant amounts of noise if fully utilized. After City review of 11 acoustical studies, the City Council placed a condition of approval on the project that required the construction of a 10 foot high sound wall on the north and west sides of the site to mitigate any potential noise impacts associated with the operation of the tennis courts. The sound wall was also specified to be constructed of either masonry panels, masonry block, or concrete panels, be airtight, and have a surface weight of at least three (3) pounds per square foot. The remaining lawsuit against the City was settled in August, 1999. As a part of the settlement agreement, Community Skating Inc. agreed not to develop a fifth tennis court. The settlement agreement also gave Community Skating Inc. the option of simply refurbishing the existing four tennis courts and continuing to operate under a previous use permit. Because Community Skating Inc. has chosen to operate under the previous use permit, the 1995 conditional use permit requiring the sound wall has never been issued. To date, no approvals for site-improvements have been granted by the City and Community Skating Inc. has not signed a lease with the City for operation of the existing tennis courts, However, on December 18, 2000, the City Council approved an amendment to the option agreement that allows Community Skating Inc. to sign a lease with the City once construction drawings are submittedfor a sound wall, which is described in the option amendment as follows: "... the 10-footperimeter sound wall, which shall be constructed from any of the following materials: masonry panel; masonry block; or concrete paneIs and 3009 Middlefield Road Page 2 which shall be constructed in an airtight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbsper square foot". The sound wall was specifically required by the City Council to be constructed prior to the renovation of the existing tennis courts, in order tO protect the neighbors from any increased noise associated with the operation of the courts. - The plans for the proposed wall have been evaluated by a structural engineer and will meet the requirements of the option amendment, including the requirement that the wall have a surface weight of at least 3 pounds per square foot (Attachment E). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The proposed sound wall .was originally required to mitigate the effects of property improvements proposed in 1995, which included the construction of a fifth tennis court. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is attached to this report (Attachment F). The mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified both the need for the sound wall and the potential environment impacts that could result if the sound wall were constructed. Because the sound wall’s potential for environmental impacts has already been analyzed in an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, no subsequent Negative Declaration need be issued for this project (per Section 15162 of the State of California Public Resources Code). The areas of potential sound wall impact identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration include the breezes and updrafts that could be created by the placement of the wall on the northern property line, the loss of trees that would result from the construction of the project (including, but not limited to, trees that would be removed to accommodate the sound wall), and the visual and shadowing impacts of the sound wall on adjacent properties. These issues are discussed individually in the paragraphs that follow. Impacts to Air Movement The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that a 10 foot high sound wall along the northem property line will create updrafts and breezes on adjacent residential properties that are not currently experienced on those sites. Similar impacts are not expected to result from the construction of a sound wall on the eastern and western property lines. This is due to the fact that residences to the west are separated from the site by Matadero Canal and a Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, and residences to the east will be buffered from air movement impacts by existing plant materials. To mitigate air movement impacts on the northern side of the property, a stepped screen of plant material was required on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" was required to consist of two rows of plant material. It was further specified the row of plantings closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half the 3009 Middlefield Road Page 3 height of the sound wall and the row of plantings closest to the sound wall shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). This mitigation measure has been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval for the project (see Condition 3a). A landscape plan depicting these plantings would be reviewed and. approved by the Planning Division staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff would be assisted in this endeavor by a landscape architect from the firm of Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey, who is under contract with the City. Loss of Trees The Mitigated Negative Declaration also identifies the potential for an impact on biological resources due to the proposed removal of mature trees. To mitigate this potential impact, a mitigation measure was placed on the project requiring the applicant to replace all trees removed to accommodate the design of the project or the required sound walls at the edges of the site. It further states that a general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline for tree replacement. Twelve (12) trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the wall. The most significant of these removals would be the removal of a row six (6) Italian Cypress trees that exist along the northern property line. The City’s Managing Arborist has placed a condition of approval on the project that the kalian Cypress trees be replaced on a 1:1 ratio with three (3) 24-inch box and three (3) 36-inch box size Coast Redwood trees. The 1:1 replacement ratio is considered appropriate due to the large size of the replacement trees. The six (6) other trees to be removed shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with 15-inch box size Coast Redwood trees. The placement of the replacement trees must be approved by the Managing Arborist. These specifications have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project, and must be shown on the required landscape plan (see Condition 3a). Four (4) Italian Cypress trees are also proposed to be removed from the interior of the site. However, these removals are not necessitated by the construction of the sound wall. Visual Impacts Finally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration recognizes the potential for the sound wall to have significant aesthetic impacts on the adjacent properties. Because the walls will be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the walls will be similar to freeway sound walls. To reduce this potential impact to a less than Significant level, a mitigation measure was adopted that required the panels of all sound wails on the site to be broken up through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The mitigation measure also suggests that the panels may be offset to break up the flat, vertical surface. However, offsetting the panels would create inaccessible pockets of City land that could not be maintained. Therefore, staff does not support offsetting the wall panels. 3009 Middlefield Road Page 4 In addition, the Mitigated Negative Declaration contains a discussion regarding the potential for significant shadowing of adjacent properties on the northern and western sides ofthe site by the proposed sound walls. The sound walls in these locations will cast shadows over most of the yards and onto the actual structures on adjacent properties for a majority of the year. Although this impact appears significant, it is not substantially greater than the impact of a standard six foot high fence in the same location. It should also benoted that the proposed 10 foot high sound walls will cast substantially less shadow on adjacent properties than the 25 foot tall trees currently on the subject property and neighboring sites. Because the shadowing impact of the sound wall is not considered potentially significant, no related mitigation measures were~ required. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE The proposed sound wall is consistent with both the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and the Comprehensive Plan, as explained below. Sound Wall Height and Placement The purpose of the proposed sound wall is to buffer adjacent properties from the noise generated by the operation of the tennis courts. The sound wall was also required as a measure to mitigate specific environmental impacts, and is not a standard fence. Therefore, the sound wall is not subject to PAMC provisions regarding fence height or structural setbacks. No variances are required for the height or placement of the sound wall. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The proposed sound wall is also consistent with Policy N-42 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: The city may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of developments through appropriate means, including, but not limited to, the following: ¯Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. ¯Screen and control noise sources such asparking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment... CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED / SCOPE OF ARB REVIEW Attachment G consists of several letters and printed e-mail messages received from members of the public regarding the proposed project. Issues relating to landscaping and drainage of the proposed sound wall and the consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan and Palo Alto Municipal Code have been addressed in this report. However, issues have also been raised relating to the placement and dimensions of the proposed sound wall and the use and operation of the tennis courts (including the lighting levels and hours of operation). These issues have been specifically addressed by the City Council and in the 1999 lawsuit settlement, and are not subject to review by the ARB. The ARB may give direction to the 3009 Middlefield Road Page 5 applicant regarding the design and color of the wall and the appropriateness of landscape screening elements. If and when Community Skating Inc. signs a lease with the City to operate the existing tennis courts, the lease will give the City Manager ultimate and final authority for the "control of hours, prices, and procedures". ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Findings for Approval/Architectural Review Board Standards for Review Attachment B: Suggested Conditions of Approval. Attachment C: Photosimulation of sound wall section Attaelament D: Letter from Marni Barnes, Landscape Architect Attachment E: Letter from Toma Goncerenco Attachment F: Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment G: Correspondence from Wei Wang, Lyrm Chiapella, Natalie Fisher, and John Abraham Attachment H: (ARB members only) Plan set COURTESY COPIES Applicant: Linda Jensen, Winterlodge, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Owner:City of Palo Alto Interested Parties:Natalie Fisher and John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth P1., Palo Alto, CA 94306 Wei Wang, 3054 Price Ct., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Lyrm Chiapella, 631 Colorado Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306 Claire Gerber, 2182 St. Francis Dr., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Martin Wetterhorn, 3077 Middlefield Rd. #204, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared by: Manager Review: Rachel Adcox, Senior Planner_ ~ John Lusardi, Cut~~g Manager Filing Index: s:plan/pladiv/arb/reports/3009 Middlefield II.doc 3009 Middlefield Road Page 6 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 3009 Middlefield Road/File No. 00-ARB-43 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that Policy N-42 supports the reduction of noise impacts using appropriate means, such as the construction of sound walls; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the height and length of the sound wall are addressed through the use ofcolor, material and texture; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the sound wall will be constructed to the specifications necessary to ensure that noise impacts relating to the use of the tennis courts are mitigated; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that no physical conflicts exist with the existing tennis courts, utility installations, or function of Matadero Canal; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the sound wall posts will be placed to avoid damage to healthy trees; and (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. ARB standards 4-5, 7-10, 13, 14 and 15 are not applicable to this project. 3009 Middlefield Road Page 7 ATTACHMENT B SUGGESTED cONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3009 Middlefield Road/File No. 00-ARB-43 The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated October 5, 2000, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover Sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. Conditions related to Planning issues ao The sound.wall shall be constructed in an airtight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbs. per square foot. Conditions relating to Arborist issues ao A landscaping plan with the below noted plantings shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Division staff prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sound wall: ¯The six (6) Italian Cypress trees to be removed shall be replaced on a 1:1 ratio with three (3) 24-inch box and three (3) 36-inch box size Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood). Varieties ’Aptos Blue, ’Los Altos’ or ’Simpsons Silver’ are to be specified. The six (6) other trees to be removed shall also be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with 15-inch box size Coast Redwood trees of the above varieties. The placement of the replacement trees must be approved by the Managing Arborist. Trees shall be irrigated with bubbler- head fittings. ¯A stepped screen of plant material shall be planted and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" shall consist of two rows of plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half of the height of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall itself shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). Conditions relating to Building issues go A survey shall be required to establish property line location prior to construction. A building permit will be required for the proposed sound wall. Conditions relating to Public Works Engineering issues 3009 Middlefield Road Page 8 Provide with Building Permit Submittal ao A plan must be provided showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. Existing drainage from adjacent properties must be maintained. The drainage patterns must be shown in the building permit plan submittal. Identify and show all easements on the property on the building permit plan submittal. During Construction Co 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 at the contractor’s expense. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. do The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) 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 BMPs with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs 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. 6.Conditions relating to Utilities/Engineering Electrical issues ao During wall construction, the contractor will locate all utilities to safeguard from possible damage. 3009 Middlefield Road Page 9~ Deva Designs, 846 Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: 650 326-6866 Re: Sound wall installation Parce! # I27-53-19. 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 The proposal before you is the review of sound wall installation that has been mmadated by the City of Palo Alto. It has been stipulated by the council that the wal! is to be concrete and ten feet high. This ruling hasbeen made by the Council at the request of the neighbors on two sides of the above property. The elevation along the North property line rises and falls from 11.5 feet at the Northeast comer, to 12.6 feet and then returns to 11.5 at the creek easement. This change in elevation is to be spread out over the run of the wall, with four inches being the greatest variation in height at any given point. The pattern of the wall is horizontal to minimize the verticality of the 10 foot high Wall. The Davis color "bayou" has beenselected to replicate the weathered look of the (E) fencing, and to echo the adjacent redwood fencing surrounding the winter lodge site, thus creating a harmonious appearance from all sides. The use of integral concrete color should require minimal maintenance. See cut sheet and color sample submitted in March. The wall posts will be 17 feet and I ½ inches o.c. (See details A-C sheet L-2.) except where the post placement would’ interfere with the health of a neighboring tree. In these cases the 17 foot span will center on the tnmk and the panels either side of that one will be adjusted to synchronize with the remaining fence panels. The wa!l will not articulate forward and back as the city attorney has ruled that it would be inadvisable to create "islands" of city property on the back side of the wall, which would be inaccessible to city employees. The property line and easement dimensions are shown on sheet L-0. The residences adjacent to the North property line are shown on sheet L-0 with approximate set back dimensions. Residences on the west and east sides of the property are across the creek and across a parking lot respectively. A section of the creek profile is shown on sheet L- 2. The tree disclosure statement is attached. All trees removed with a d. b. h. greater than 4 inches will be replaced at a 2:! ratio during phase II (not a part oftkis current application). We will provide a photo board at the meeting. Marni Barnes Landscape Architect Attachment Februaxy. 12, 2001 TOMA GONCERENCO STRUCTURAL ENGINERI~G 5936 Chesbro Ave. San Jose, CA 95123 (408) ~2~. 4z~s PRINTEX CONCRETE PRODUCT 825 Independence Avenue Mountain View; CA 94040 To whom it rn~y concern. ¯ Subject : Winter Land -Palo Alto Sound Wal! This l~,¢r coafams that wdght o£4",thick preca~ walI ofconcr~t~ is 50 pS£ or 12.5 psf p~, one inch tl’dcleacss. truly ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM o Project Title:Tennis Center (Former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center) Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue~ Pa!o Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator (650) 32.9-2561 Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 96-UP-1, 98-EIA-6 Community Skating Inc. (Linda Jensen), 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 General Plan Designation:Major InstitutionlSpecial Facilities¯ Zoning:Public Facilities (PF) Description of the Project: Community Skating Inc., operators of the Winterlodge skating facility, propose to develop the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis facility for use as a tennis facility, The development includes re-orientation of two existing tennis courts, resurfacing of two existing courts, construction of one additional court and construction of a passive park area, restroom facilities, and related site improvements including additional parking and parking area landscaping. The project would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would include resurfacing the four existing tennis courts, parking lot improvements, landscaping in the passive~ park area and construction of restroom facilities. Phase tWO would include construction of the fifth tennis court. The project requires a conditional use permit for operation of an outdoor-recreation service (tennis facility), and Architectural Review. Board (ARB) approval for the proposed site improvements, p:\EIA\EIA.MST 1:2/1/96]Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 10. 11. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site currently contains four tennis courts, in poor but functional condition. In addition, the sit~ contains an area that previously contained a swimming pool, which hasbeen removed. The site abuts a channelized section of Matadero Creek. The front (south) property.line abuts the M/interlodge skating facility and an automotive service station. Single-family houses border the property’s north and west property lines and a multiple-family. condominium complex borders the east property line. Other public ~gencies whose aPproval is required: The Santa Clara Valley Water District will require the applicant to obtain permits for construction within 50 feet of the creek bank and for any change in storm drainage affecting, existing outfalls into the creek.. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g ENVIR ONMENTAL CHE CKLIS T FORM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X .and use and Planning PoPulation and H ousing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation X X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and service Systems X Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance S:\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2. I g ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI IST FORM DETERMINATION: On the basis Of this initial evaluation.: 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, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the proiect. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY. have a signlficant effect[s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1.1 has been adequately analyzed in an.eariier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and [21 has been addressed by mitigation meas~Jres 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. t 151anner.Date Director of Planning & Community Environment Date S : \pl an\pl adi v\-ei a\3oOgmnd2: I g EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 2) 3) 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 proiect 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 proiect-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Poten.tially 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 leve’l Imltigati0n measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) 6) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,’program EIR~ or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 1 5063 ~ (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. " Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate ir~to the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances), Reference to a .previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or. pages where the statemen~ is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a.suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Issues tpotentlally Sign~ficant Unless M itig atl c n Incorporate~] Less Than c) d) _AND USE/kND PLANNING. Would the prop~sah Conflict with general plan designation or zoning7 ~onflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impaCts from incompatible land uses1? ’ - - Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an estabUshed community (including a low-income or minority community)?. 1 1 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose peop.le to potentia~ impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?2,3,7 b) Seismic ground shaking?2,3,7 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?2,3,7 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ¯2,3,7 e) Landslides or mudfiows?2,3,6, 7 f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? 2,3,7 g) Subsidence of the land?2,3,7 h) Expansive soils?2,3,7 II Unioue aeologic or,physical features?2,3,7 X X X X X X X X X X X X S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g I lssues a’ndlS~pporting InfOrmation Sources Potentlaliy Significant issues P otent~ally Significant Unless Mitlgat~on tncorporated Less Than SignHicant impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a}Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ¯ b} Exposure.of people or property ~o water related hazards such as flooding? c)C~ischarge in;~o surface-waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,, dissolved oxyge~,-turbidity or other typica1 storm water pollutants [e.g. Sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from t landscape maintenance? I 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 !throuoh direct additions or withdrawals, or through -interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabUity? 7,8(B- ¯ 7) 7,8(B- 7) 7,8(B- 7,8 7,8 X X .X Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?7,8 h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? 7,8 Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Alteration of wetlands in any way? 7,8 7,8 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 c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or caose any change in climate? 8(B-5) 9 9,19 X X X S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g ilssues and Supporting Information Sources Slgnif~cant Issues Potent|ally Significant Unless Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact td) Create objectionable odors?5,9 6. TRANSPORTATIONIClRCULATION. Would theproposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? c) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with.adopted poticies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 5,10, 18 Hazardsto safety from design features [e.g. sharp 5,10, curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 18 (e.g. farm equipment))? inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 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)? 5,10, 18 c}Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,10, 18 5,1 O, 18 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: 121. 1 . 6,8(B-i 12) 6,8(B- 12) 6,8(B- 6,8(B- 1 2) X X X X "X X X X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL REsouRCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation p’ans?!11 S : \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources P o.tentlalty Significant Issues Potentiatiy Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signlf[cant Impact b} c) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that-would be of future value to the region and the resid ants of the State? 11 11 X X 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:. A risk of accidental explosion 5r release of hazardo’us .substances (including, but not limited to: oit, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency ~vacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ’ " t d)of people to existing sources of potentialExposure health hazards? " | e) increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, | grass of trees? 5,8(B- 8,B-9) 5,8,( B-8,B- 9)15 8 (B-8 B-£}, 15 5,12 x X X X X 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe nois~ levels? 8(B- 4),16, 20,21 8(B- 4), 20,21 X X PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or a~tered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources P otentiatly ! Potentlatly Significant Signffica.nt Issues Unless N~itlg ation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact -d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 13 X storm dra~n facilities? e) Other governmental services?~ 12-.UTiLiTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for.new systems or supplies, or substantial alterati.ons to the following utllities: a) Power or natural gas?5 b) .Communications systems?5 Local or regional water ~reatment or distribution 5 facilities? c) d)Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? tf) Solid waste disposal? Q) Local or regional water supplies? 5 5,13 5 5 X 13. AESTHETICS." Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? 5,6 5,6, 17,19 22,23 5,6 X X CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ootentia] impact area? 6,8!(B-14) 6,8 (B-1 4) X X X x X X X X X X S" \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources S~gnlficant Issues P otent~al[y" Sign[ficanl: Unless IV~itig ati o n Incorporated Less Than Signi:flcant Impact 1 5. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a}Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other ¯recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 5,6 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rangeof a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistor~/? 19 b} Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c~ Does the project have impacts that are individually¯limited, but cumulatively Considerable? {"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects} 19 19 d) Does the project have environmental effects which Will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effect have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case discussion should identify the following items: 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 a adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effec ¯ were addressed by mitigation m’easures based on the earlier analysis. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Sup ling Information Sources Signlficant Mitigation measures. For effects ti-.:t are "Less than Significant with Mitigation incorporated," describe the mitigatic r-neasures.wiqich were inco~: orated or refined from the earlier document and the extent.to which they address s :~-specific conditions of the project. Authori.ty: Public Resoorces Code Sections 21083 and. 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (cl, 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21.083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990}. 18. SOURCE REFERENCES Palo &Ito Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Land Use map (1981-1 995), land use element (1 981), Urban Design element (1981) and Environmental Resources Element (1 981). Required compliance with Uniform Building Code standards for seismic safety. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report,.1994. Public Facilities (PF) Zone District Regulations (Section 18.32 Palo Alto Municipal Code} Review of plans and specifications submitted with application. Field investigations/site visits Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 980-1995; Environmental Resources Element. 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. Palo alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Report, pages 15-30; 1994. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, ½ransportation Element; 1981 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 50-61,1981. City of Palo Alto Fire Department, written comments on application; 4/10/96. City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works, written comments on application; 4/16/96. City of Palo Alto Police Department, written comments on application; 4/9/96 and 4130196. City of Palo Alto Hazardous Materials Division, written comments on application; 419196. Acoustical Analysis prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, inc. For the proposed project; 4/8/96. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1 995, Urban Design Eiement; 1981 S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and-Supporting Information Sources Significant Signlflcant Incorporated Less Than Sign~icant ~mpacl; [_ 23 !8 t Memorand~Jm from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division; July 22, 1996 19 Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items 1-1 8 and 20-23. 20 Supplemental Acoustical Analyses prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.; 418/’96, 1/1 5/97, and 6/12/97 21 Acoustica! Analyses prepared by I~tingworth and Rodkin Inc.; 4116197, 6/12/97, 10/29/97, and 10/30/97. 22 Supplemental information provided by DEVA Designs (for CSI inc.}, regarding air movement, shadow patterns and visual impacts; 2/13/98 and 4/9/98. i Letter from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey; 3/10/98 S: \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g " Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentia{ly Significant Issues PotentlaIIy I~i~g ation Incorporated Less Than |mpact 19. (b,d, g) t ~FXPLAblA’[IONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES Geologic Problems. , The site is located in a seismically active area which is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land is possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely. All new construction will be subjectto the provisions of the most cur[ent Uniform Building code {UBC), portions of.which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life an.d property in the event of an earthquake. ~: None required. Waterl 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 C(eek, but the site is within the 500 year flood zone. During construction activities, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to Matadero Creek and the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife depeodent 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 t’he site because of a siig.ht increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existinguse. The standard conditions of approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Mitioation: None required. S : \p] an\pl adi v\ei a\30.O9mnd2, i g tissues and Supporting Information Sources ’P°tentlalIy / Potent{ally Significant S~gn~flcant Issues Unless Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ~,C) Air Q.uality. The sound walls r~quired as mitigation for potential noise impacts will have potentially significant impacts on air movement unless mitigated (see discussion under 10 (a), Noise, below for further detail on potential noise impac.ts.and rr{itigation). The ten foot high wall along the northern property line will create updrafts and breezes on adjacent residential properties that are not .currently experienced on those sites. A stepped screen of plant material on the tennis facility-side of the wall will substantially reduce the updrafts and breezes. The breezes and updrafts created by the tenfoot high wall along the western edge of the site will not impact residences on the opposite ~ide of Matadero Creek because the breezes and drafts will dissipate prior to reaching those properties. The updrafts and breezes created by an eight foot high wall on the eastern property line, if Phase Two is will be mitigated by the existing plant materials on each side of the.wall. The project would also result in temporary dust emissior~s during grading and other construction activities. The standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to a less than significantlevel. The standard conditions of project approval will require that the fol~owlng 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 sha~l be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. A condition of project approval will also require the sound walls along the north property line and western edge of the site to be constructed before the rest of the Phase One improvements so that dust and noise impacts on neighboring properties will be minimized during construction. All mitigation measures listed below will alsobe incorporated as conditions of use permit approval for the proposed project. Mitiqatiq,n: 5.(a) 1,A stepped screen of plant material shall be.planted and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the northern property line. The "green screen" shall consist of two rowsof plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately half the height of the sound Wall and the row.closest to the wall itself shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall). 5.(a} 2. The final selection of plant material for the "green Screen" shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist and by the Architectural Review Board 5.(a) 3. The screen shall be located in a manner consistent with the Conceptual plans submitted by DEVA Designs, dated 2/13/98, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources S~urces S{gnlflcant issues Potentlally Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant. Impact 6 3"ransportation/Circulation. (a,dl The total number of new trips for the five-court facility will be 140 daily weekday trips, with 12 occuring during the evening peak hour and a maxim~Jm of 160 new trips on Sundays. The new fifth tennis court will account for 33 of the 140 new daily weekday trips, three of the 12 new evening peak hour trips and 38 of the 160 new trips on Sunday.The Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment reviewed the project and determined that the additional trips cou]d be absorbed by the surrounding street network and would not be noticeable to nearby residents or create a significant impact. The proposed tennis facility and the existing skating facility, which shares the project site, require a total of 89 on-site parking spaces, seven of which are required for.the tennis facility. With the addition of 30 parking spaces at the front df 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 pro.vided that special events are not held simultaneously for both the Winterlodge and the tennis facility. The mitigation measure below prohibits special events from occurring7 simultaneously for both facilities. This mitigation measure will also become a condition of use permit approval. ,.Mitiaation: 6,(d)4.To ensure that there is sufficient parking on-site, the tennis facility shaft not hoidspecial events or have tournament play at the same time special events are being held at the Winterlodge. S "\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Less Significant {rnpact Biologica~ Resources. No endangered, threatened, or rare animal, insect or plant species have been identified on the project site. The project arborist’s report indicates that there are 1 8 existing trees located on the project site. The applicant intends to remove a total of ten of these existing trees. Noneof the trees proposed f6r removal are protected by the City of Pale Alto Tree Preservation and Maintenance Ordinance, however all ten trees are mature landscape features on.the site. Five trees would be removed because of conflict with the project design or the health of adjacent tre.es. Of these five trees/two are in poor condition, two are in fair condition and one is in good condition. An additional five trees may need to be removed to accommodate the required sound wails on the site (see discussion under 10(a} Noise below for further detail on potential noise impacts and mitigation). Two of these five trees are Cedrus deodora located along the western edge of the site in the parking area and are in good condition. Two of the five trees are Cupressus sempervirens located along the norhem prop.arty line and are in fair condition. The fifth of these five trees is an Ulmus parvifolia located along the eastern property line and is in fair condition. As noted in discussion 10 (a), Noise, below, the required sound wails on the site will be equally effective in mitigating noise impacts whether constructed of wood or masonry materials. Both types of materials will achieve the same level of acoustical attenuation. Sound walls of either material can be constructed using a pier and post beam construction technique. The supporting posts can be hand-dug to avoid root zones, which willresult in less potential impact on existlnfl trees. Using this type of construction technique may result in the retention of some of the trees that would need to be removed ff different construction techniques were used. Wooden wails will, however, have less impact on the surrounding micro-climate because they will not retain or reflect as much heat as masonry walls and will not change surrounding air flow as noticeably. In addition to the above trees, the Department of Public Works Arborist recommends removal of three existing parking lot trees because of their "brittle nature", and replacement with a suitable parking lot species. The applicant proposes to plant five new trees, groundcover and shrubbery in the passive pa~k area at the ¯ ear of the project site. The City generafly uses a 2:1 replacement ratio for aft trees removed from a project rite, The number.of trees removed from this site will be partiafly dependent upon the construction technique used to build the required sound walls, The number, species and location of replacement trees will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division Arborist as weft as by the ARB. in addition, the applicant will be required to replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species subject to review and approval of the City of Pale Alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. Mitigation: The applicant shall replace all trees removed to accommodate the design of the.project or the required sound walls at the edgesof the site. A general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline ¯ for tree replacement. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO£mnd2.1g Issues and .Supporting Information Sources Issues Potentially S|gn~flcant " Unless INl+itlg al~ on Incorporatecl Less Than Significant Impact 7.(a) 6. 7,(a) 7. The applicant shal~ replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species, The location and s~ec.ies of all required replacement trees shall be subject to the review and approval- of the City of Palo alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB. S :\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OO9mnd2. I g Issues and .Supporting Information Sources Significant Potentially " Unl~s . |neotp orated Less Than lrnpa~t 1 0 Noise, The eight acoustical analyses prepared for this project (sources 16, 20, and 21 ) compare the proposed tennis facility use to the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance for uses on public property adjacent to residential properties (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). The ordinance sets a noise limit of 15 dB above the existing ambient condition-at each slte property line. The ambient is defined as the lowest s.ound level repeating during a six minute period, but not less than 40 dBA. This standard was used as the threshold to determine significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. The ambient noise levels at the property lines were measured and found to be 41dBA. The acoustical analysis, dated October 29, 1997, prepared by lllingworth and Rodkin, Inc., the acoustical consultant hired by the City of Palo Alto, and concurred with by the project sponsor’s acoustical consultant, Edward L. Pack Associates, recommends:construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the nor.thorn property line; a ten foot high sound wall along the western edge of the site, at the edge of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement; and either a fourteen foot acoustical barrier a~ong the eastern property line or a ten foot high acoustical barrier along the eastern edge of court number 5. The City’s acoustical consultant confirmed that a sound wall would not be required along the eastern propen~, line or along the edge of the fifth court if the fifth tennis court is not built. A facility with four tennis courts, as shown on the applicant’s proposed development plan, requires sound walls only along the north property line and western edge of the site. During discussions at City Council meetings, it was suggested that an eight foot h. igh’sound wall could be located along the eastern property line if the fifth court was constructed. The acoustical analysts noted that exceedence of noise levels along the eastern property, line could be dependent upon the age and comparative strength of the players on court number 5, which is located closest to the eastern property line. The final analysis, dated October 30, 19,97 recommended continued monitoring of the use of the fifth tennis court, if ft is built, to determine if there is substantial exceedance of the noise ordinance as a result of play on that court. In the event that there are continued violations, operational restrictions could be olaced upon use of the fifth court, such as limiting play to players under a specific age, or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court could be required such as construction of a sound wall. Since the construction of the fifth court is not anticipated until Phase Two of the project, mitigation measures associated with that court are listed below under Phase Two Mitigation. The final acoustical analysis, dated October 30, 1997 recommends any of the following materials as equally effective for acoustical attenuation: masonry panels, masonry block, wood or concrete panels. These materials constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 Ibs. per square foot will brihg noise levels down to 56 dBA, which meets noise ordinance standards. ~Mitioation: Phase One Mitigation: lO.(a) 8.The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight: acoustical sound wall along the northern property line. : 10.(a) 9. The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant S~gnfflcant issues Unl.ess Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Imp act Mitigation (contd 4: wall along the western edge of the site, along the border of the Santa Clara ValleY/Water District easement. lO.(a) 1 0. Any of the following materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls: masonry panels; masonry block; wood; or concrete panels. All sound wails shall be constructed in an air tight fashion with a sur{ace weight of at least 3 Ibs. per square foot. 10.(a) 1 1.Final design of Phase One sound walls-shaft be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and shaft use pier and grade beam construction techniques for the footings and foundations. Phase Two Mitigation: 10.(al 12.If a fifth court is constructed on the "site, the operator of the facility shall construct an eight foot high air tight acoustical sound wall-along the eastern property line using the same materials, design and construction technique as used for th# sound waf/s on the north property line.and western edge of the site. 10.(a) 13.The operator of the tennis facility shall monitor noise levels at a distance of 25 feet from the eastern property line for the first year of operation after construction 5f the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound waU. Acoustical measurements shall be taken 25 feet from the e#stem property line 12 times a year which shaft include, as a minimum, monitoring during tournaments, on Saturdays or during other times when increased activity exists. These readings shall be conducted on an unannounced basis and shall be funded by the operator of the facility. Results of these readings shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. At anytime during or after the first year of operation, after construction of the fifth tennis court and 8 foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall have authority to order independent noise monitoring at the applicant’s expense. 10..(a) 14. 10.{el 1 5. If any violation of noise ordinance standards occurs during the first year of operation after construction of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound wall, the Z6ning Adm{nistrator shall schedule a use permit hearing for the project in order to consider either operational restrictions on the use of thefifth court or other physical solutions at the eastern edge of the fifth court. If a noise ordinance violation is shown, the Zoning Administrator shall order the use permit amended to require construction of the 14 foot wail a~ong the eastern edge of the property line unless the .applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that an alternative noise mitigation will be effectivE. The 14 foot height may be achieved by constructing a six foot extension of a similar material to the other sound walls on the site onto the eight foot high sound well. .~ Final design of a sound wal! constructed as part of Phase Two, and modifications made to the wall during, or immediately after, the first year of operation of Phase Two, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OOgmnd2.1g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlally Significant Issues Sign~flcant Signlf~cant Unless Impact ~it~g atlc~n Incorporated 12 Public Services, Currently, maintenance of the existing tennis courts is the responsibility of the City of Polo 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. Utili~:ies and Service Systems. In addition to the proposed upgrades to tennis facilities and construction of anew passive park area, the applicant proposes to regrade-the site and construct a new storm water drainage system which would resolve a long-standing drainage problem on the subject site. The applicant will be required to obta{n approval of the gradi.ng and drainage plan from the Santa Clara Valley Water district as well as the City’s Public Works Department. Mitiqa~;i..o.n.: None required. S \pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2. I g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potent~all¥ Significant Issues S~gn~ficant Unless Nllt~g at~on lncorporate~] Lass Than S~gn[ficant [rnpact I ~,c) t 15 (a,b] Aesth eti cs. Overall, the proposed tennis facility will improve the appearance of the project site. The applicant intends to. develop a passive park facility on the site of the abandoned pool and gym. The tennis courts will be reoriented and resurfaced, existing light poles and fixtures will be removed and perimeter landscaping and the parking area will be upgraded. The ten foot high sound walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site as well as the eight foot high wall along the eastern property line, should Phase Two be constructed, have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts on the adjacent residential properties. The height of the walls has the potential to result in a fortress-like appearance to the property. As the walls wili be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the walls will be similar to that of freeway sound walls. The visual impact can b.e reduced to a lessthan significant level by breaking-up the final design through articulation of the panels with texture ani:l banding. The panels could also be off-set slightly to break-up the.flat vertical surface, In a’ddition.to the visual impacts, the walls along the northern property line and western edge of the site .will caste shadows over most.of the yards and onto the actual structures of the adjacent property for a maiority of the year (see analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 2/13/98). Although this impact appears significant, it is not substantially greater than the impact of a standard six foot high fence in the same location as the required ten foot high sound walls (see analysis submitted by DEVA Designs dated 4/9/98), There is no threshold or established standard for the amount of sunlight needed or expected in a residential backyard, however, the impact of the ten foot high sound wallscould be reduced by including )anels of glass block or other transparent material on the upper two feet of the wails, creating "windows" for light. The design of these panels could include detailing, such as fenestration or framing to avoid a tacked-on appearance. The use of glass block or other transparent material could be made a condition of use permit approval for the project. Mitigation: 13.(b}16.The panels of all sound walls on the site shall be broken-up through articulation of the panels with texture and banding. The panels may be off-set to break-up the flat vertical surface. 13Jb)17.The final design of the sound walls, and other wails on the site, shall be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. The review shall occur by the Board and shall not be delegated to planning division staff. Recreation. The proposed tennis facility will increase recreational opportunities by improvino existing tennis courts, which are almost unplayable in their current condition, and by adding one additional tennis court and passive park area, Mitiqation: None required. S:\plan\pladiv\eia\3OO9mnd2,1g WE, THE LINDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED f.... ~.~.1 ~ L- ~’~ ~, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWNAS ~ ~.~l.l~t::~ ~rrr~.r~:l~.[~-/~¢~_,~l PALO’ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signatu e~Date. S :’\pl an\pl adi v\ei a\3OOgmnd2. I g Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ichiapella@juno.com Sunday, February 11, 2001 11:57 PM Rachel Adcox@city.Palo-alto.ca.uscity__co~ncil@city.Palo-alto.ca.us; Ed_Gawf@city.Pa!o-alto.ca.us; sukiroo@hotmail.com; herb_borock@hotmail.com; annetteglanckopf@postoffice.worldnet.att.net; dgreene1945 @earthlink.net; dmytels@batnet.com; ron.wolf@keynote.com; sgartner@ix.netcom.com; shed.furman@compaq.com; Ichiapella@juno.com; WPaloAIto@aol.com Re: Landscaping for sound wall at 3009 Middlefield Road Dear Rachel; I appreciate the phone update. 1 certainly wish I had found the staff letter on Wednesday, February 7th, when I visited the Development Center. Although I have not found a copy of the staff letter, I am encouraged that some of the issues I mentioned are already being taken care of.. These are the questions I still have concerning landscape: 1) VVill there be a 2:1 replacement of removed trees? 2) How will the discrepancy in tree count between the two plans and the actual number of trees along the sound wall be resolved? I have left. messages with Deva Landscaping in regards to the this issue. See tree count at bottom. 3) Will the requirements of PAMC 18.83.100 (f) be followed i[~ regards to landscaping on the sound wall? 4) Will the sound wall provide anchors for vines in order to allow them to grow up rather than sprawl on the ground? 5) Will there be landscape elements along the sound wall next to the creek or will this be a 10’ concrete addition to the current concrete channel we call Matadero Creek? I am still unclear about the discrepancy in the tree count. The tree count between the March 2000 landscape plan along the sound wall and the December 2000 plan appears to have declined by 5 trees. There is no explanation of this discrepancy between the two plans in the "Changes" box. When I viewed the site, I saw 9 Italian Cypress, 2 xylosma, 1-2 flowering fruit trees, 2 Canary Island palms (1 large, 1 small), 1 locust, 2 eucalyptus, and 1 elm(?) for a total of 19 trees. There are also 6-7 very large shrubs or multistem trees. Please ask the applicant to present a landscape plan at the ARB meeting which meets the requirements of 18.83.100 (f) to provide a dense visual buffer. I have recently seen several plans for sound wall landscapes in Midtown that do not appear to provide even a minimalist fence cover, much less a dense visual buffer. Large uncovered areas of fencing and sound wall located in commercial areas seem to attract graffiti artists. Those walls and fences with a green buffer do not offer a refuge for these "artistes". I do not believe that staff has the authority that the ARB has to require a dense green buffer as evidenced by the most recent minimalist approvals in Midtown. I believe that the ARB in a quasi-legal hearing must deal with the code issues in regards to the number of replacement trees, spacing and support of vines, choice of plant material that will provide a dense buffer, etc. Sincerely, Lynn Chiapella Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To:Subject: WPaloAIto@aol.comTuesday, January 23, 2001 9:20 PM rachel adcox@city.palo-alto.ca, usPleas~’file this and the last emial I sent you in the Development Center Dear Rachel: When I was going through the documentation in the City .file, something .caught my attention and that is all of the documenations wd~ten by Deva Design are very unprofessional such as all of them have no date and. some have no signature. Most of all, things that are not architecture related in their documentations are all nothing but lies. Can you also please show me their qualification to do sound wall applicaton? 1 also want CSl to get another report on these sound wall related issues besides Deva Design besides show me Deva Design’s qualification. Plese put a copy of this mail plus the email I sent you this morning about drainage plan in the City file for this project at the Development Center. Thanks. Wei Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To:Subject: WPaloAlto@aol.comMonday, January 22, 2001 9:32 PMrachel adcox@city.palo-alto.ca.us Drainage Dear Rachel: Can you please ask CSI to submit the drainage plan before scheduling of the ARB hearing? Three years ago they wrote something about a v-shape ditchfor this side of the wall. The problem with it is that it will be inaccessible to neither them nor us and eventually will have no function because of lack of maintenance. Wei From neighbors on Price Ct. Dear Architecture Review Board members: We are the closest neighbors of this tennis center site (the nicknamed "future Palo Alto Midtown Stress Center"). The closest tennis court to our property lines is only 20 feet away. Three years ago when the subject of this wall was first raised by acoustic engineers, its location was right around the tennis courts. A copy of the report and drawing by Mr. Rodkin, the acoustic engineer hired by the City, is attached. But as soon as it~ location was announced in the City Council hearing, the CSI (Winter Lodge) representative jumped up and objected. Under norma~ City Council meeting procedure, people are not allowed to talk until being invited by ,the mayor. But strangely enough at that time, not only was he allowed to talk but also his opinion was accepted by the mayor, at that moment. So the wall immediately was moved to our property lines and we were not allowed to talk throughout that night’s discussion. In th.e following hearings, when it was our turn to talk, we brought the subject up but our voices were too low to be heard compared with voices from CSI. The problem with having this 10 foot tall 300 feet long sound wall sitting on our property lines is that our living and bedroom windows and doors are less than 10 steps away (Please call 494-0700 any time to arrange a site visit). There are two reports in file for this project talk about the wall’s effect on us, both copies are attached. One report says that this wall will: result in a fortress-like appearance to our property. Present a mass similar to that of a building without the articulation normally present in a building. As the wall will be viewed primarily from a close distance, the apparent height of the wall will be similar to that of freeway sound wall. ¯The wall on the north property line (ours) will cast shadow over most of the yards of the adjacent prope .rb/for the majority of the year. In addtion, they will cast a shadow onto the actual structures. ¯The wind patterns created by the wall will impact adjacent property owners. This type of wall will create stress for us (besides the stress created by intensive tennis bail hit noise during tennis tournaments when all four courts are playing at the same time), The second report points out that this wall will: Change the micro-climate surrounding the trees by reducing air flow and increasing the temperature by reflecting and retaining heat, thus increasing the risk of disease and pest infestation. .o it ~vould cause severe root loss and would most likely affect the structural integrity of the tree as well as the nutrient uptake. Putting its effect on us in our own words is: this wall will make us feel like we’re in jail, day after day, year after year, generation after generation. We are good citizens and so are our children. We never committed a cdme. All we did is voice our opinion about the noise this tennis center will bring to us at such a close distance. This will also violate Noise Ordinance. Tn most of the cases where tennis courts are located, land buffer is used to control the noise problem. This 10 foot tall sound wall, which will be sitting on neighbors’ property lines, is the first (that I know of) used instead of land buffer. Not only it is an eye sore that is detrimental to neighbors’ health but also it has no function as the neighborhood begins to go second story because of the s~ high land value in this area. Since 1984 the old Chuck Thompson Center was closed, these courts were not maintained. The two courts that are closest to us were locked up from year 1995 to 2001. Believe it or not, there are 37 public tennis courts right along Middlefiled Rd. within the distance of one to two blocks fromthis site: Right Across from the Street 2 courts with practice walls sitting in Hoover park. To the South ¯7 courts in Mitchell park, one and half blocks away ¯6 courts in J’LS Middle School right by Mitchell park ¯6 courts in Cubberley Center, one block to the south from Mitchell park To the lqorth ¯6 courts in Jordan Middle school 1 block away ¯9 courts in Rinconada park, another block away If anyone has a chance to go to the 6 courts at Jordan Middle School or the 7 courts in Palo Alto High school or the 6 courts in Gunn high school, then they can easily tell that Palo Alto does not need new tennis courts. What Palo Alto needs is a private tennis center where tennis tournaments can be scheduled and courts can be reserved. It happened that the board of CSI agreed to manage these courts for such purpose as long as City gives them the lease for this land. Three years ago, after the City Council approved the use permit for this private tennis center along with the wall as the Negative Declaration Mitigation Measure, three law suits were filed by all sides of the neighbors. The only side that did not participate is Middlefield Rd.. After about a year’s time, the City hired law firm from San Francisco to assist them with the fight against the neighbors, our side and the creek side cases were thrown out of the court for the reason that our attorneys forgot to include CSI as an interested party. Only the case brought by our condominium neighbors had a settlement. But the sad thing is: because of this settlement, our condominium neighbors are forbidden from any more dispute about this tennis project. Last December 18, the City Council passed the Option To Lease agreement with to give CSI the lease with a single requirement and that is to propose for this wall. We were not notified of this Council meeting and only got to find out about it from an article written on December 2.6, 2.000 in the Palo Alto Daily News. 3ust imagine: if we missed this article that day or the newspaper editor decided not to put it in, then very possibly that you won’t hear us now. It is beyond scary to think of the fact that the City has the power of not notifying affected property owners of the public hearing that a 300 feet long 10 foot tall sound wail is proposed right on their property lines which would cause so many well documented detrimental effect to them. We respe~vely ask for your permission to not approve this wall on our side of the neighborhood. Please ca!l 494-0700 any time to arrange a site visit. P.S.: if, unfortunately, this wall will be approved, p}ease make sure that each of the relevant condition in the Eg98 use permit is followed correctly, especially the drainage. As far as we know, the wall is not allowed to have holes on the bottom to allow the drainage because it is a mitigation measure and the drainage plan has to take the foundataion of this wall into consideration, and so if drainage will be put in between the wall and neighbors’ fences, it needs to be properly maintained despite of the fact that neither side of the wall will have access to it. Also, if the wall will be silting within the distance of 20 feet from our property lines, we request to have another hearing before the issuing of the building permit because of the following reasons: ¯we will hire our own engineer to make sure that each relevant condition in the 1998 use permit is followed correctly. the landscaping company hired by CSI has made a false statement in one of their not-dated nor signed report which is in the file for this project (copy is attached). They said that this wall is required because of our requests, which is totally false because we protested against it hearing after hearing, petition after petition, and eventually a law suit three years ago (copy is also attached). .~t t a~.h.~ent LL NGWOFtTH & RODKIN, IIIEE Acoustics . Air Quality M E M 0 ’Fo: From: Date: Subject: Ron Anderson/City Council/City of Palo Alto Richard B. Rodkin, ~P’F. October 30, 1997 3009 Middlel’ield -- Mediation Effort I am writing this memo in response to a letter received today from Jeff Pack of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. and a telephone conversation with Mr. Pack. He conducted additional noise measuremen~:s of tennis play of the type that would be representative, in his opinion, of activities that would occur at Winterlodge. The new data would support assuming a lower noise level for the noise of tennis play. His analysis confirmed that approximately a 9-foot source height would be appropriate for an adult serving. Using his data, he proposes a 9- foot barrier at an alternative location adjacent to the courts along the west property line, a 10-foot barrier adjacent to the courts along thg north property line, and no barrier along the east side of Court 5. While his data increases my comfort level regarding likely conformance, with the noise ordinance, 1 hesiLate to discount the data that Dr. Salmon ira; gathered. I suggest constructing a 10-foot barrier around the west, north and east court boundaries as an alternative (Figure i). The 10-foot barrier along the north property bounda~, we concur, is the minimum necessary. The 10-foot barrier along the west property boundary (1-foot higher than Mr. Pack recommends) would provide a definite break in the line-of-sight between a ~erson serving and a person standing in the rear yard. While Mr. Pack’s data indicates that ~he ordinance limits would be met at the condominiums with no mitigation along the east side or 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 lhe cast edge of the proposed Court 5, as we previously recommended. P, t3l?.:gfl I=. nclo su re (97-025) Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Landsc.£pe Architects & Planners 225 bliIler Avenue. bIilI Valley. CA 94941 415 383-7900 Fax: 415 383-1433 E-Mail: 75570.3 | 26 @Compuserve.corn R HAA ~ @ AOL.¢om RHAA@ix.Netcom.com MEMORANDUM February 24, 1998 "I’O:Lisa Groter City of Palo Alto FR.:Cordelia Hill, C.I.P. Design Consultant RE:Design Impacts of the Proposed Sound Walls at the Winter Lodge Tennis Facility Review of the proposed sound walls at the Winter Lodge Tennis Facility, as shown in the drawings prepared by Deva Landscaping dated 2/I 1/98, raises concerns on several design issues. The height of the walls will result in a fortress-like appearance to the property. The’negative impacts of the 8’ and I0’ wall heights detailed below should be considered by adjacent property owners in addition to the noise nuisance. The majority of the noise from play occurs in the four feet next to the ground, with only serves and overheads creating noise above this height. A reduced height should be deliberated, when the other factors of shadow, wind and mass are considered. ¯The walls, particularlyat the ten foot height, will present a mass similar to that of a building, without the articulation normally present in a building. As the walls will be viewed primarily from a dose distance, the apparent height of the wails will be similar to that of freeway sound walls. Care must be taken in the final design of the walls to break up the apparent mass. Mitigation for the apparent mass could be achieved through articulation of the panels wil~h texture, banding, etc. Another possible means of mitigation would be to offset the individual panels slightly, to break up the flat vertical surface. " ’ . ¯The walls on the north property line at both the 8’ and 10’ heights will caste shadows over most of the yards of the adjacent property for. the maiority of the year. In addition, if the walls are constructed at a I 0’ height, they will cast a shadow onto the actual structures. Adjacent property owners should be made aware the loss of light that will result. principals: Robert N. Koyston FASLA - Emeritus Asa Hana.rnoto FASLA -Emedtus Louis G. Alley AIA ASLA Kazuo Abey ASLA L 1037 l-brold N. Kobaya’~hi ASLA L l I |-~ Barba~’a D. Lundburg AS!A L 1591 William E. Fee ASLA AICP L 2537 Co’delta L.. Hill ASIA APA L 2024 Manuela Anne King AS~\ L3271 . Craig B. Hanchett ASL~. L ~r24I Douglas Ndsua A.Sl.- Aditya Ad~anl ASLA D-anielle Machctk"~ A~L.k Lisa Grote City of Palo Alto March_3, 1998 The wind patterns cre;~ted by the walls will impact adjacent property owners, though a Igreen screenI could reduce these impacts substantially. The green screen should be included as a requirement for developme’nt. Further reduction in wind velocities could be achieved by !nduding small openings in the base of the wall. However, this could reduce the sound buffering impacts of the walls. As detailed in the attached report by Deva,.the construction of the walls will result potentially in loss of five mature trees along the property line. These. trees serve as a visual separation for the property and should be replaced. Two of those trees are in poor conditi6n and would be removed regardless of type of construction. However, if concrete block is selected as the building material, three additional trees would be lost. Use of wood as the building material would reduce the stress :~nd potential tree loss. Th~se losses should be offset by Palo AIto’s tree replacement requirements of two boxed trees for every loss of mature trees. Sincerely, ROYSTON HANAMOTO ALLEY & ABEY Cordelia Hill, ASLA Principal (415) 526-6866 DEVA LANDSCAPING NO, ,MP~,CT OF THEIN~. TA.LLATION 846 BOYCE, PALO ALTO, CA 94301, OF S~UND wALLS O’~IEXISTING AND PROP. OSEDTREES 3009 Middlefield RoadPalo Alto, California TI~¯¯ ’t are to remain in the proposed plan that will be affecte~ the i~~i~e°~x2t~%%tn~ewsatlhl~ two Cedrus deodora in the parking lot; two existingbycheduled to remain along the north property line; and one Ulmusu r ssus sempervirens s . ,, .........~...,4 T,,=,- /i< for a description "of the ~a~i~(~lia on the east property fine. He,er [o m~ trees and their condition as of February 1996:. Cedrus deodora -- Numbers 3 & 4Cupressus semp6rvireris- Numbers 13 & 14 UImus parvifolia -- Number 18The following comments apply equall~’ to the bot~ an eight ioot or a ten foot wall. The two CedrGs deodora will be effected by both the construction of the foundation of a block wall, as well as the ongoing presence of the wail itself¯ If a block wall is set at the location of the existing chain-link fence (as the construction of a wall along the property line would most likely be prohibited by the Santa Clara Valley Water District), the foundation will require cutting into the root zone to Within a few feet of the trunks of these trees. The impact of these cuts,i’s’will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that the wall will be set at the current¯dedge of the asphalt, so the expose soil and therefore the predominant area of i’oot growth will be minimally effected. None the less, the root damage will be moderate and will require compensatory pruning of 10% to 15% of the tree canopy. The wait itself, will change themicro-climate surrounding the trees by reducing a~r low and ~ncreasmg ,he temperature by reflecting and retaining heat. Thus increasing the risk of disease and pest infestation. A.wooden wall would .have less impact on both the root zone and the micro-climate; The placement of the posts could be adjusted to accommodate the tree and the root damage would be minimal. A wooden wall would still reduce the air flow, however wood reflects an.d retains less heat than concretb block. .ern ervirens tllat aie scheduled to be. retained would be lost by¯The two Cupressus s p ..........,_...~., ,,~, ,~,,~,~,= v line in that location. the installation of any type¯ o~ souna Wall ~na~Construction of the cohcrete drainage V-ditch proposed to run along the north property line will already compromise these trees. The ditch and a block wall together would cut roots on both "sides of the trees resulting in an 80% to 90% surface root Io~s. These trees would have to be removed¯ Depending on the final location of the drainage ditch, a wooden wall may be able to be constructed to jog around the trees and avoid major root loss, allowing them to be saved. " Similar to t~e Deadors, the Ulmus parvifolia is within a few feet of the existing fence.. " r source of water for this tree is from the planting area on the adjacentHowever, !h~e_ ~ualn~ation of a block ,vail would cause severe r.oot I.os.s property. H~u Luu" ........, ,,-^ ,,-.,-, o~ ,^,~fi as the nutrient, uptake, me ~r.ee ~.uuu~ .effect the s~ruc~u.rm m,!e.g, y ..ve less im ac’, as the placememremoved if a block wal~ is installed. A wooden wall would ha P .of the posts could accommodate the tree and the root damage could be minimized¯ With verifi,c~tion of the actual root loss in the field, it is possible that compensatory pruning of 15%to 20 ,o of the canopy would reduce th.e wind-sail factor and the tree could be retained if a wooden wall were installed. The pioposed trees will not be effected by the installation of sound walls. Deva Designs, 846 Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: 650 326-6866 Re’., Parcel # 127-53-19, 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, .CA .94306 The proposal before you is a sound wall i.mstaHation that has been mandated by the City. of Palo Alto. The wall is to be concrete, and ten feet high. This ruling has been made by the Counci at the request of the neighbors on twosides of the above property.. The grading of the site is such that there wii1 not be.any need for incremental changes in wall height. The pattern of the wall is horizontal to minimize the Verticality of the 10 foot wail. The Integral concrete color has been chosen with a view to minknal maintenance. The color "bayou" has been selected to echo the weathered look of the adjacent redwood fencing. As indicated on the Conceptual Plan of the site, the existing shrubs and trees that will be removed to accommodate the installation of the wall will be mitigated by more than a two to one ratio. Layered planting is also proposed to reduce the velocity of any wind as it interfaces with the walk Mami Barnes Landscape Architect l 2 .3 ’4 6 8 I0 ii 12 13’ I4 16 19 20 El 22 23 24 25 26 2~ 2~ Keith M. Casto, CSB No. 1,41279 GIerm E. Westreich, CSB No. 100457 ROSENBLUM, PARISH & ISAACS Professional Corporation 555 Montgomery Street, 15th F!oor San Francisco, California 94111 (4 ! 5) 421-8232 Telephone (415) 397-5383 Facsimile Attorneys for Petitioners WE[ WANG and \VEYYI TONY WANG SUPERIOR COURT OF CALI.FORaNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLAP,_A \VEI WANG and \VEYYI TONY WANG, Petitioners, V. CITY OF PALO ALTO and CITY COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO, Respondents. " Case No.0:, 9 VERIFIED PETITION FOR ~¥RIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ADMtNISTt~kTIVE MANDAMUS (CCP § 1085 and § 1094.5) Date:March 3, I999 Time:9:00 Dept.:13 Petitioners allege: 1.Petitioners respectfully petition this Court to issue a Writ oF Mandate commanding Respondents CITY OF PALO ALTO and CITY COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO to vacate and set.aside their action token on October 13, 1998 approving a Negative Mitigated Declaration and project known as the Tennis Center, located at 3009 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, in the County o[" Santa Clara. 2.Petitioners WEI WANG and WEYY[ TONY WANG are owners o[. a home at 3054 Price Court in the CITY OF PALO ALTO. Petitioners’ property is adjacent to and north of the proposed Tennis Center project at a distance 0[’20 feet t’rom two o[the five proposed new courts. As such, Pe’titioners will bc adversely affected by the noise generated by the proposed Tennis Center which will increase the noise love[ or" Petitioners’ home to 56 decibels or more, or at least l0 decibels above the decibel limit permitted by Respondent CITY’s noise ordinance. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 2l I 3.Respondent CITY OF PALO ALTO is an incorporated charter city under the laws of 2 California; Respondent CITY COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO istl~e governing body of tlae CITY. 3 4.For many months, Commua~ity Skating, Inc. a private corporation, has sought 4 Respondent’s approval to construct and operate, a five-court Tennis Center adjacent to Petitioners’ 5 property. The Centei is proposed to be on property leased by Community Skating, Inc. from 6 Respondent CITY and proposes construction of. a new tennis court and .the refurbishing of four old 7 courts which are in poor condition, the five courts to be thereafter used in a manner which Respondents 8 have found will increase the noise level on Petitioners’ property on a daily basis to 56 decibels or more, " 9 an increase of at least 16decibels above the minimum ambient noise lever of 40 decibels on Petitioners’ t0 property, even after Respondents’ proposed mitigation measures are in place. 11 5.Copies of the rdevant pages of Respondent CITY’s noise ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of tlae 12 Municipal Code are attached as E,"cb.ibit "A" hereto. 13 6.The Ordinance declares the policy of the CITY to protect its citizens from excessive, 14 unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources (§9.10.010), defines a "local ambient" (§9.10.020(d)) prohibits any person from producing a noise level more than 6 decibels above the local ambient level on residential property, (99.10.030), and 8 decibels on commercial or industrial property,, (99.10.040). On public property, "no person shall produce a noise level more than 15 decibels above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided iathis chapter." 050). There is provision for specified exceptions such as construction during certain hours, for sources which are no greater than 70 decibels at a distance of 25 feet and for individual pieces of equipment. (§9.10.060). 23 7.In the legislative history of the Ordinance which was enacted in 1972, the Ordinance was 24 described in a staff report dated June l, 1972 as being "tough, concise, enforceable and comprehensive," ~ =and that in residential areas, "No individual noise source would then be allowed to ~roduce-a noise level 26 area of the City more than 6 decibels above the normal level." (Emphasis added) A copy of the 27 28 staff report is attached as Exhibit "B" hereto. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 t2 13 14 16 17 19 2O 2~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8.On public property, persons are allowed to generate noise 15 decibels above the ambient level at a distance of 25 feet, but there is no exemption provided to allow the decibel level at the property line tzo exceed the 6-decibe.l limit in adjacent residential areas. (§9.10.050). 9.Violation of the ordinance constitutes a misdemeanor (§9.10.080) and the Police Department is intended to enforce, and has enforced the ordinance by using noise meters at property lines when informed ofa citizen complaint. Since the adoption of the Ordinance in 1972, the Police Department has interpreted and enforced the Ordinance at the boundary of the property which.will include the Tennis Center. 10. Petitioners"property has been determined to have an ambient level of 34 decibels or less. Petitioners are informed and believe, thnt Respondent CITY’s Ordinance prevents the Termis Center from increasing the noise level on Petitioners property to may level above 46 decibels. Petitioners are informed and believe, that even with ~he mitigation measures adopted in Respondents’ Mitigated "Negative Declaration, the daily decibel level on their property will be 56 decibels or more. l l. Petitioners retained an acoustical expert, Dr Vincent Salmon, P.E., ~vhose report was .provided to the CITY stating in pertinent part, "No sound wall would be adequate to prevent the Noise Ordinance from being violated" with regard to Petitioners’ property. Dr. Salmon’s data indicated that tl.~e noise levels which would be generated at the Tennis Center would be more than 70 decibels and, even with a sound waII, xvould be 56. decibels ot more on P~titioner’s property, well above the 46-decibel limit established by the Ordinm~ce. 12. The Noise Element of Respondent CITY’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes that: "Noise levels over 55 decibels disrupt all types of normal listening activities." 13. Despite Dr. Salmon’s expert opinion and corroborating testimony, both oral and written from lay people that the Tennis Center, as proposed, would have an adverse environmental impact on adjoining properties including those of Petitioners, as wel!. as violate the Noise Ordinance, Respondent CITY COUNCIL voted on October 13, !998 over Petitioners’ protest to approve the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which required a sound wail, but accepted the imposition of 56 decibels from the Tennis Center on Petitioners’ property and approved the Tennis Center project. Petitioners requested that an Environmental Impact Report (FIR) be prepared but Respondents declined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 2O 21 22 14. Petitioners are informed and believe that Respondents abused their discretio1~ in ignoring the opinions of Dr. Vincent Salmon, and approved development and operation of the Tennis Center without consideration of the environmental impact of the noise from the Center on adjacent residential areas, including Petitioners’ property, as required by the City of PaIo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter Respondents’ proposed mitigation measures include construction of a ten feet tall masonry sound wall on the property line at a distance of 20 feet from Petitioners’ living room and bedroom windows. This wall will have a severely adverse effect on Petitioners’ use and enjoyment of their property. Not only will it result in a fortress-like appearance to the property, it will cast a shadow on Petitioners’ home, disrupt air circulation and views, and potentially cause tiooatn=, aama~e to trees, and other damage to Petitioners’ property. Accordingly, Petitioners would suffer substantial adverse impact from the construction of the proposed sound wall adjacent to their property. 16. Petitioners are further informed and believe that the Respondent abused ~eir discretion by taking an action which violated CEQA and the CITY OF PALO ALTO Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 by its failure to require either (1) an Envir.orm~ental Impact Report (EIR), (2) a focused EIR on the impacts, or (3) mitigation measures that would bring the noise from the Project within the requirements of the ordinance, and that would not themselves result in adverse impacts. 17. At all stages of the Tennis Center project hearings before the CITY’s Planning Commission and Respondent CITY COUNCIL, Petitioners have appeared and expressed their opposition to the Tennis Center and the inadequacy of the mitigation measures being considered by Respondents. !8. Petitioners are int’ormed and believe the Respondents’ ~t.io.a.,af October 13 has become ~nal unless this Petition is granted and Respondents are commanded to set aside and vacate their 24 approval of the Tennis Center project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 25 19. Petitioners have exhausted their remedies before the CITY COUNCIL and have no plain, 26 speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than the relief sought in this petition, 27 in that the Tennis Center as approved.will violate the CITY’s ordinance and impose substantial adverse 28 impacts on Petitioners and their neighbors. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 i0 Ii 12 15 16 20. Petitioners are personally obligated to pay their attorneys for attorneys’ services to prosecute this action. Petitioners m-e entitled to recover attorneys’ fees as provided in Code Civil Procedure §1021. 5 if they prevaiI in the within action on the grounds that Respondents’ decision constituted an abuse of discretion and Petitioners action will confer a punic benefit by compelling the CITY to compty with CEQA and its own noise ordinance. 21. By filing and serving this Petition, Petitioner requests that Respondents prepare a true and correct copy of the Administrative Record at Petitioners’ expense. A true and accurate copy of.the Record will be lodged with the Court before the hearing. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray: 1.A peremptory Writ of ivIandate be issued commanding Respondents to set aside and vacate their adoption of the Mitigated Negative Decl.aration and approval of the Tennis Center, and to order an Environmental Impact Report prepared and submitted for consideration by Respondents before the Tennis Center is approved. 2.That Respondents be ordered to prepare and lodge myth. the Court a complete Administrative Record of all proceedings involving the Tennis Court project. 3.For Petitioners’ costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in this proceeding, 19 20 2~ Dated: November 12, 1998 ROSENBLUM, PARISH & ISAACS Professional Corporation Keith M. Casto Attorneys for WEI WANG and WEYYI TONY WANG 24 26 \\RPl.Si-lSYS\LtTxCLI\Wang\Pld\pctition writ mandamus.doe 27 28 ~)[7777 0001 DD0286.DOC} - 5 - Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ichiapella@ju no.corn Thursday, Febru&ry 08, 2001 4:18 PM Rachel Adcox@city.Palo-alto.ca.us; Ed Gawf@city.Palo-alto.ca.us sukiroo-@hotmail.com; herb borock@h0~mail.com; dmossar@yahoo.com;annetteglanckopf@postoffic~.worldnet.att.net; dgreene1945@earthlink.net; dmytels@batnet.com; ron.wolf@keynote.com; sgartner@ix.netcom.com; sher furman@compaq.com; Ichiapella@juno.comLandscaping for sound wall at 3009 Middlefield Road Dear Ms, Adcox: Please let me know when the staff report for 3009 Middlefield Road item scheduled for the February 15 2001 ARB meeting is available. Since the project is already scheduled for ARB, I must assume that the application was deemed complete. The project does not appear to meet the Palo Alto Municipal Code or Comprehensive Plan in regards to Natural Environment - Creeks. 1) There is no variance for a 10 foot sound wall. The conditionalpermits approved for the Chuck Thompson site did not include a sound wall. 2). There is no provision for replacement Of the trees and removed landscape in this application, especially along the creek. The landscape plan submitted with this project in March of 2000 has been superseded bythis application of December 2000, which includes a clear cut of all " vegetation and no replacement. 3) Each plan for 3009 Middlefield that comes into the Planning Division shows fewer and fewer trees on site. As of March 2000 there were 22trees and large shrubs or multi- trunk trees on site. The March 2000 landscape plan showed 19, while the December 2000 plan shows fewer trees of approximately 15 (?). ¯ 4) The removed trees should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, as per PAMC. 5) Trees, landscaping, and irrigation should be provided as part of the project because the project is abutting and opposite residential neighbors. " 6) Drainage questions at the rear comer where there has been prior flooding should be address prior to the ARB meeting and approval. 7) Tree planting should be established in cooperation with the Utility and Public Works Departments to avoid the utility lines and easement. As you know Chuck Thompson was forced to plant a dense visual screen in the easement because of the location of the structures. Sincerely, Lynn Chiapella FEB 0 8 200~ French, Amy , , From:Sent: To:Subject: Nat Fisher [sukiroo@hotmail.com]Tuesday February 06, 2001 12:12 PMAmy_French@city.palo-alto.ca.us ARB meeting 2/15/1001 Item#3 00-ARB-43. Dear Ms. French: Please give copies of this message to the member~ of the Architectural Review Board for the Feb. 15 meeting, regarding item #3 on the CSI soundwall at 3009 Middlefield Road. On EIIsworth Place, the soundwall will not extend the entire length of the street, but only to the end of the tennis courts. This means that the residents closer to Middlefield Road will not have any protection from the noise of tennis playing. One possible solution would be to have the wallcurve at the Middlefield end so that the sound will not extend beyond the wall in the direction of Ellsworth. There is a real problem for people living on Pric& court next to the tennis facility. A 10 foot wall is massive, an aesthetic problem for all, and as Marnie Barnes (the CSI architect) illustrated in her plans, the wall will cast shadows over the yards, even reaching the houses. The City needs to be flexible in moving the wall away from "right on the property line." The wall will also cause occasionally severeupdrafts, which one arborist has said calls for a green screen. Natalie Fisher Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com February ~i, 2001 ,Qr~hi-f.ezf.urel Review ~nerd 250 " ...... ~ ~ .......... Palo Alto, CA 94303 To the Members of the Architectural Review Board: In your consideration of this proposed sound wall, please keep in mind the f{~Iowing issues of particular importance to the neighbors: Acoustical Sound Wall to be Constructed Prior to CS! ActiYities After extensive hearings before tile Zoning Administrator, Plannin.q Commission and City Council, specifications for the wall were agreed t~ b~ the City and applicant CSI in tI~e 1998.,Conditional Use Permit (CUP)p~ssed by the City Council October 13, 199u. . Condition 31.."The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a I0 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall alon~ the northern (Price Court)-property line;," .~ i ..... Condition 32. TI~e operator of tI~e tennis facility snm~ consu-uc~ a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall alon.q the western ed.qe (Ellsworth Place) of-the site."~~ Condition ..3. Any of the follo,~]ng materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls: masonry panels; rnasonry block; or concrete panels. All sound walls shall be constructed in an air t]ghtfash]on., w]thasurfacewe].ghtofatleast~ ~ Ibsp.el square.~oot.. Condition 39. "The sound walls alon.q the north propert.LI line and western edge of tI~e site shall be cons,t, ruct~d prior to the com~encementof other PIlase One site improvements.’ ’ The original proposal submitted b.q CSI for the 1998 CUP has been modified as’~ result of an a.qreen!,.ent p~rtaining to a lawsuit brought bythe residents of the Condomi°nium~ on the east side. Condition 8 of tI~at a.qreernent states "This settlement is contingent on tile CIt.LI’S a~ithorization of payment of an amount not to exceed $50,000 to CSI a~ a contribution for hal~ tI~e cost of the construction of sound Y/alls required as conditions of the conditional use permit..." This authorization was passed by the City Council on October 4, 1999. The original specifications for tile sound wall were written by an independent acoustical engineer selected by the City, Mr. Richar(I E. Rodkin, PE, of lllingworth & Rodkin, Inc. His reco}~!!mendations appear onpage 2 of I~is letter of October 29.. IC~97. 2nd to .last oarat~raDh ta[tachment A): "To be effective, the barrier must be solid, have a minimum surface weigf~t of 3 Ibs per square foot and be constructed airtight over the face of the barrier and at the base of the barrier. Suitable materials would include masonry panels, concrete panels, masonry block, or wood, if properl.LI. , detailed. ....." The City.. Council. specified masonry in its meetinq~s prior to and including tile final version of the CUP on October. 13, 199u, as quoted above. While there have been. subsequent discussions about which Use permit is appropriate for tI~is project, tI~e City I~as required the masonr.Li and sound wall specifications as listed above in the 1998 CUP and note~ in tile letter of Januar.q 19,.2001 from the Planning Department to Ms Jonson representing Wir[terLodge (CSI). The January 5, 2001 letter from Cit~q Manager Frank B~nest to CSI representative I-inda Stebbins-Jensen (A[tachm~.nt B) sa~qs in part "In addition to these operational conditions, this letter wil’i confirm the Council’s recent action that requires completion of the sound wall before any CSI operations begin." . . . Nei.qhbors have not been told what refurbisI~in.q reall.q means. Arethe cnur~s to be taken out and completely rebuilt.Z ~Jr ~re t~iey merely to be resurfaced? One of tI~e reasons the wall is to be built first is to protect neighbors from dust levels and noise during this refurbishing. Existing Lights on the Courts ~o be Removed Prior to Refurbishing of the Courts On June 13, 1994 the Cit~q Council passed an amendment of Council Member Anderson specifuin.q "tibet the courts not be lighted. (Excerpt included in Attachment C~. ~he 1977 Use Permit for the site, (condition 4) says "The height, sNelding and intensity of exterior lighting shall be such that no li.qht source shall be visible from adiacent residential property and no~ excessive glare or spill light shelf fall on adiacent residential propert.Li." The’1998 Conditional Use Permit (Condition 7) says "Lights shall n’6t be allowed on the courts at an.,y, time. Any existing light fix~tures on the courts at the time of this appt-o~l shall be remove~ when renovation of the facility cornmences." Tile setde,n~ent a£reementof 1999 betw,,een CSI tI~e Cit~ and the Condorniniurn re.oident~ sa.qs in paragrapI~ 3, ’MRHA (Middlefield Road Homeowners Association) anc] CSI a.qree that a revised plan will be submitted by CSI to CITY’s A’~chitectural Review Board for approval which does not contain any practice backboards, permanent tiered seating~ night li.qhtin.q facilities for the tennis courts, or amplified sound facilities, a~6d CSI will not thereafter request approval b~ the ARB for an.q such facilities without approval of a new or revised-conditional use~permit following public hearings. MRHA and CSI agree that any permanent seating at the site shall be bencI~ seating. (Attachment D)" " ¯ TI~e letter of Understanding, recentl.LI sent b.q Cit.LI Manager FrankBenest to Linda Stebbins-Jensen represe.’i~tin.q CSq, dai~ed J~nuar!4 5 ¯ 2001, states in part (Condition 4)"The tennis ~ourts will not be ligt~te~ for pla.q." (Attachment B) A~ nei.qhbors, we are asI.-.i~..q that the light fixtures be removed whenrenova[ion"commences, just a.o’the language specifies in the !998 CUP, condition 7, detailed above. Hours of Opration Posted The 1998 CUP states (Condition 3) that "The hours of operation for the tennis f,acilit.tl sI~all be 8 a.m. to dark Monda.LI through S.~turday and 9a.m. to daM, on ~undays and holidays, and (Cor~dition 4) The hours of operation shall be clearly posted at &I~e entry gate to the facility and at all individual entrances to tl)e five tennis courts." Mr. Benest s letter of under.,tanding of J~nuar,LI 5, 2001 says "The hours of operation will be clearly posted-at the entr~(I gate to the facility and at all individual entrances to the tennis courts."- Nei.qhbors will .qet few da!4s off from the noise of this pro~ect. If the Boar’~I does not ,~ish to re#trict days of use to exclude Sundays and holida~qs, please insist it]at hours be posted at the entr.q gate. This ensur~ tibet police, should they be called, will enforce’~.t~’~ hours of operation regarding violators. 2 !n r~snans~ ta di~cussicm ,~baut th.~ imp~’Ls r,f ,~ ten ~ wsll ~t the Price Court propert~A plane, Zonin~ Administraic~r L is~ Grc~t~ hir~d Cordelia Hill of Royst~% Hanamoto Alleq & AbbeN,~.o revie~ tI~e propose~ sound walls. The resultin~ ~eport dated~ebruar~Z4, 1998 is Attaclm’~en~. E. Note the statement~- The height of the"walls will result in fortress-like appearance to the property. The negative im~ac!s of the 8’ and I0’ wall heights de~ailed below s~:~ould be "~onsi~ered ~N adjacent propert~ owners in addition to th~ noise nuisan~.., m~d ~he Walls, particularly at the ten foot height, will present ~ ~ss similar to that a buildin~,without the articulation normally pre~ent in a building. As the w~ll~ will be viewed primarilu from ~ close distance, tI~e a~parent h~ight of the walls will be similar~o that of freeway sound walls.’ " ~s noted in her report %he w~lls on the north.propert~ lin~ at both the 8 and I0’ heights will cast shadows over most of tI=~~aros of the adiacent propert~’lor tI~e maiorit~ of tI~e ~ear. In addition, ~f the ar~ construc(ed ~t a I0 height, t~y wil! ~ast a shadow onto the actual structures. Adjacent prope~ owners should be m~de owsre of the loss oflight that. wi-ll result." ~Is. B~rnes, Landscape Architect for the applicant,, has submitted extreme case sdenarios for the shadows at Price Court (~ttacIment F). Mr. Rodkin has submitted an alternative location of the sound wall that would avoid the shadow problems (Attachment G). Ms. Hill also notes "The wind patterns created by the walls will impact adjacent propert~ owners, though a ’qreen screen’ could reduce these impacts substantially. Conditior~25 o~ the Council approved CUP dated October 13, 1998 re~ds "A stepped screen of plant material shall be planted arid maintained by the tennis facilit~! operator on the tennis facilit~side of the sound wall alan9 tI~e northern propert~ line. The "qreen~screen" sI~all~consist of two ~eow~ of planS, m~teria~. TI~e rowc~osest to the tenni~ facility shall gro,~ to be approximately, half the heigI~t of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall its~If shall ~row to be approximately eight feet hitch (two feet below the top of the~lall). Condition E6 of the same CUP provides that "TI~e final .~election of plant materi,al for the,’green screen’ shall be reviewed and approved b~the CitN of Folo Alto Fl~nnin~ Division orborist and bN the Architectura~ Review~Board (ARB)." " There is also the issue of drainage. The contour lines of one map in File O0-ARB-43 indicate a low point in elevation near the property of Ms. Wan~ on P~ice Cdurt. Under Condition 9 of the 1998 CUP the applicantnee~ to ~;ubrnit .a final grading and drainage plan to Publi~ Works Engineering. Other Important Issues The 10’ sound wall will stop at tI=e e.d.q~ of th_. court, and leave residents on Ellsworth Place nearest Middlefield unprotect~:d iiom lino, of sig!It Noise. The court noise can be reduced for these residents by wrapmng the wall around the courts on th,e. Middlefield side.The ~rowth of iv.q on the wall .qi~es a pleasin~q appearance and protects ~gainst ~qrafit~(i. In this regard the sound wall at the YMCA on Ross Roadhas, fo~’: some reason, never been iv~ friendl~.~ while tI~ sound wall at St. Mark’s Church at 600 Colorado Avenue duM~g tI~e summer is covered with iv.L1. Nei.qhbors would appreciate some discussion about how friendl.tl to iv~ t~e pro’posed wall will be. , In"~iscu~,;~;ions so far, the applicant has declined to Sa.LI exactly ~’hat "refurbishing" means. Does this mean rernoval of someof ~he courts and complete rebuilding? Is it just resurfacing that will be done? 3 We also need to have verified that the proposed wall has weight of 3 Ibs per square foot and that it is airtight from top to bottom as ~er Mr. Rodkins’s specifics, tions. Thank you for your consideration of these issues of importance to neighbors. John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California 94306 I!!1 Acoustics ¯ Air Quality October 29, t997 Ron Anderson City of Palo Alto City Council P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SUB3-ECT: 3009 i~iddlefrield -- Nledi,.tion Effort De~ Mr. Anderson: I am writing this letter to summarize the comments that I made at the la.q mediation meeting and to respond to a question from Wei Wartg regarding the method ~e us~ to c~culatc the effecfiven~s of ~und b~iers. Before designing mitigation measures, one must h~ve l! set of assumptions !n place regarding l.he allowable noise level, the location and l~wel of the source of the noise, and the possible locations for the noise barriers. ¯With respect to the Noise Ordinmace, the City determined instarttma~ous, repetitive noise level (L~, ~,,0 oF 15 dBA above the m-abient. Based on me~surementsby Jeff.Pack, the mmbierrt is lissumed to be 41 dBA. The tdlowable maximum repetitive noise l~el would therefore be 56 dBA. I recommend that the noi~ ordinance be enforced in the center of.the rear y/~rds ofthe adjacent residences or on "the balcoxfies of" the adjacent condominiums. U~ing dsrta developed by "Vincent Salmon and Jeff.Pack, I determined that ~ sound level of 76 dBA would be appropriate for noise ordinance ~nNysis. This level is the tenth percentile below the top of the ~tatistical distribution of noise loveb which were supplied in their reports (,2 dBA below the loudest m~sured level). Thi~ would be represemative of the noise generated by a serve. The height of the serve is assamed to be 9 feet above the ground. The serves are assumed to be ~tnack at the service linein Court 3 for the maalysis to the west and in Court 5 for the ~nalyses to the north ~nd l have enclosed barrier calculations. C~.Iculation Sheets 1 and 2 sumnmrize calculatioos to thenorth. The bin-tier is a~surned to be 10c~ted at the north property line. Cvlculations show the barrier must be 9 to 10 feet high in order to reduce noise to 56 dBA L~,,,~,,:. We, therefore, 85 Bollnas Road, t~11 ¯Fairfax, C~lifdrnle 94930 ¯(415)459-5507 -FAX (’415)459.6446’ = ~- .~,95:<F’.~OC’[-~I- ] 997 15:24 41o4. ~4~ " KonAnderson "’" October 29, 1997 Pase 2 recommend a 10--fool barrier at the north propm~ line. Calculations t0 the west are shown on page 3. Barriers were tested on each a{do ofthe creek. A 10-foo~ barrier is neccss=ry alongthe Wintedodge side ofthe creek and an B-foot barri~ is necessary alonlg the neighbors’ side of the creek. Th0 problem to lhe easl widrl the condon-finiums ia some-what differ~nt because it is a multi-story structure. The unmitisat~ noi~ le~d i~ predicie~d to be 61 dBA at the balconies oflhe condomirfium~. Assumin/g ambient noise level.~ ar~ similar at th~ condominiums, then 5 dBA of additional noise re, duo~ion is rcquirod. Assum[n~ a s~ond-~ory receptor 14 ihct above the ground, a 14-foot barrier i~ nec~Bsary at the property lJ.q0. An altoma~ive would be to construct a ’1 O-foot hlf~h barrier ~i the east edge of Court 5. . . Barrier h~,ds~hts and locations are shown on the rnclosczd figure. The analysis is based on information providcd on plans ~nd from lhc respective To be effective, the barrier must be solid, have a minimum ~,rface weight of 3 Ibs.lfl.z and be cortslrueted airtight over the f~,e of the b~rier and a~ the base ofthu barrier. Suitable materials world include masonry pmael~, concrete p~.rtel~, ma~om-y block, or wood, if proper~y detailed. We lgene~ally recommend a post-and-plywood panel coastruetion for wood barriers. An alternative alon8 the edge of’ Court 5 vcould be to construct a plexislas,~ barrier or a combination of, a solid’ wall ~pporting a plexSglass barrier above so that activities on the courts could be viewed from the park.. This concludes the summary, ofmy analyses. Unfortunately, I am not able {o ~ttend the meeting on Octt~ber 30th du~ to illn~ but will b~ avail~b t~ter that "to answer any que.~ions. Sincerely yours, Pdchard I3. Ko~, PE Enclosures (97-025) 15:25 z115=~596448 95>;.|-’. i; of ee of n ger "Linda"Stebbins-J~nsen Co.msn~nity Skating, Inc. 385 ~herman Avenue, Suite Palo Al~o, CA 94306 .J~nuary 5, 2"OQ1 RE: Community Sk&ting7 Inc. Tennis Liase Dear Linda: "-"~,. This letter-desCribes th~ maj6r operat.ional conditions that I intend t’o .~la~e upon th~ CSI’ "oChuc~ ~hbmpso~’ tennis "facility lease. These conditions track pre~iously approved City Council actions. Zn addition to these operational.conditions, this letter will c~nfirm the Council’s recen~ .’action that requi~e~ completion of the sound wall .befDre any CS~ operations" begin¯ ’ As we previously dls.~ussed,~ . the operational condltlons" ’ ’ will include the follow&ng: .I.The hours .of. operation for the tennis f&gility will be 8:00 a.~, to ~ark on "Monday.. through Saturday and 9:00 .a.m. to dark on ~ndays and holidayS. The hours’ of operation will be clearly posted at the entry gate to the facility and at all individual .entrances to the tennis courts.. CSI will provide a 2~-hour. c~ntact t~lephone number so that .violations of -the hours. of operation, limits can.be f~ported as they occur. The tennis courts .wil! not be lighted for. play. BoxPaio Allo, CA 94303 650.329~.63 Lind~ ~te~binsJJgnsen January 5, 2001. .’Pag4 2. RE: Cbmmu~ity~....~a.ting~ I~.,. Tennis.L~ase. Thank you:..for, your cooper~t~bn. FB/s! - de:Cit.y ~ouncil Natalie Fisher. John Abraham ’Wei Wang FRANK BENEST’ Cihy Manager kt tach~..~en~ C with CSI and PATC, as appropriate, development of the remainder of the site with low intensity recreational use£ that were com~p~ti~le u~e be ~o cost _to_ t~e citz, and ~e£urn ~ the~ with reco~nd~i’ion~; and~~)--~dopt the_ Bud~~endment Ordinance establishing a Capital Improve~Project (CI~ in tn~ amouht of $30,000 to remove and backfill the swiping pool. ~ina~4~ntitled "Ordinance of %he Council of the City ~> of Palo Alto ~ending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993L94 to Provide’an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19420, ’Chhck Thompson Site Pool Removal’" Council Member McCown said a lot of points, concerns, and history had been brought up regarding the item and the Council had the benefit of lawyers studying the ballot arguments of the language in the original measure. It was clear in the Ordinance that there was absolute commitment at that time that the entire property would be used exclusively for recreational purposes. The Council Members who proposed the exchange of the land said that the effect of the exchange would control the development of site acquisition of the whole parcel and would allow, as with the~Gamble property, citizen direction for the use around theWinter Lodge. Nothing precluded dedicating the entire Midtown as parkland. The future use of the property would involve the process the Council was going through now, which was participation on the part of the community. She felt there was an overwhelming bias by the proponents of the -measure that public and worthwhile recreational uses of the site be considered. The staff report acknowledged that there might be worthwhile ~ecreational uses at the site. The problem with the proposals was that further development of a new pool as proposed by CSI would involve substantial commitment of City dollars which staff recommended against. She agreed with staff on that point. The pool represented a more intense use and a far greater potentia! problem for the surr~unding neighborhood. For that reason, she felt it would not be appropriate to pursue that further. CSI did not feel that it could be pursued without financial participation on the City’s part. She recommended other recreational uses, such as community gardens, tennis courts, or a combination of both be considered. It was open space; but once it was developed for housing or other structures, it would begone. To the extent it ¯ was available to the neighborhood for a !ong time as a recreational facility on open space, it could be incorporated in an intelligent way into the neighborhood. It was an extraordinarily valuable asset to that neighborhood, but she understood the frustration with the noise problems which needed to continue~to be addressed. She believed the community, CSI, and the tennis supporters should really .consider making smart use of the site for the benefit of t~at neighborhood and for the entire City before concluding that it could not work. Council Member Huber agreed with Council Member McCown and supported the motion. He agreed legally that it was clear in the Ordinance that the City could do whatever it wanted with the property. There was no question in his mind that most of the people who had supported the exthange, including himself, meant for .06/13/94 73-91 the property to be used for recreational purposes. At that time, there were tennis courts, an ice skating rink, and a swimming pool. No one knew that those things would not continue to exist; and unfortunately, houses had been built close ~to the property. Council’s action that evening. ~would benefit the householders because.the potential for th6 pool had- always been there. He agreed explicitly with Council Member McCown that a pool was an~ ~expensive proposition and should not be put in that location. If that kind of money were going to be spent to put a pool in, the City would be better off if it put in playground equipment, resurfaced tennis courts, etc., which would provide better recreational, use than spending money for a poo!. Council Member Andersen agreed with the motion. He wanted to include a condition that there not be lighted tennis courts as a benefit for the neighbors. council Member McCown asked whether Phase I of the CSI proposal intended to add lights. Senior Financial Analyst Janet_ Freeland~replied there were lights site but they wer~t currently hooked up. The CSI---->on the proposal included updating the lights to low standards that had less impact on neighbors or there could be no lighting. ~END~~ "-~u~cil Member Andersen, seconded by Wheeler, t~"~..~ ~___> ~t _t_~h~t_.ennis courts not be lighted.-.-~ Council Member Andersen appreciated the need for lighted courtsin the community and other areas might be considered, one of the major issues was the impact on a neighborhood that was close to the site, and one way that night noise could be controlled would be if the opportunity to play tennis in the evening were not available. It would create a better environment for the neighbors in that a tea, Mayor Kniss asked what percentage of the tennis courts in Polo Alto were lighted courts. Chuck Bradley, member of Polo .Alto Tennis Club, said there were 13) lighted tennis courts, six at Polo Alto High School. Council Member Huber opposed the amendment because the Council would look at the issue again after proposals for use of the property were reviewed. At that time, it could be decided whether there would or would not be lighted courts and what time the courts would c!ose, etc. Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the amendment. .For the purposes of the PATC and USTA matches, it would be beneficial to have four courts that were lighted, and the lights could be turned off at a reas6nable hour. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the proposal would return to the C~,incil for review, which would allow for discussion of the issues brought up by Council Member Huber. ¯06113/94 73-92 City Attorney Ariel Calonne said ye@. As he understood Council Member McCown’s motion, ~t would return to the Council with an option to lease the-property. The staff report advised the Council ~that an Environmental Impact Assessment of that proposal would have to be done at that time.3 Council Member Wheeler was still in agreement with Council Member Anderson’s amendment. She had difficulty determining at that particular location, which was immediately adjacent to residences, that it would be a good place.to add lighted tennis courts. There were a ’number of existing tennis facilities within the City park system that were more appropriately located for lighted courts and were not so.close to immediate neighbors.~ Vice Mayor Simitian opposed the amendment but was sympathetic to Council Members Anderson’s and Wheeler’s comments. He agreed with Council Member Huber that if the motion were successful, the staff could return to Council with a proposal that would be responsive to the concerns of council Members Andersen and Wheeler with regard to the impact on the neighbors and the rel~tionship that night lighting might have. There had been a lot of discussion around the issue of who was there first, the housing or the recreational facility. He felt that was irrelevant. The fact was that there was a recreational facility that was adjacent to a residential use, and the.Council had the responsibility to make the uses compatible. That kind of debate would always be around when there were people that wanted the integrity of their R-I neighborhood respected but who also wanted services and amenities in close proximity to their R-l’neighborhood. The two desires conflicted with each other. ~~Mayor Kniss supported Council Member Anderson’s a~endment not to have lighted courts, not because the lighting might disturb the neighbors, but because of the noise factor. ~.~%ME~DME~ PASSED 5-4, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, simi.tian "no.’~ Council Member Fazzino found it difficult not to support Council ~embe~~’~i~’:s~ame---n~ment~given the arguments. He supported the main motion. It was clear the intent of the 1985 campaign and the actions by many in the 1980s were to preserve the site for recreational use. He had been on the Board of the~YMCA at that time and for many years the YMCA had looked long and hard at that site for recreational purposes. The ~easure on the.ballot was a carefully constructed compromise with a split Council. If the Council decided to use the site for a purpose other than recre- ational use, he felt the decision should to return to.the voters. The primary effort in 1985 was to preserve the Winter Lodge, and t~a~c~uncil s~ufd not do anything t~j~0~ardf~ its future. He and former Council Member Cobb had opposed the proposed condominium d~velopment recognizing there would be noise problems associated with-the juxtaposition of the Winter Lodge and the condominium d~velopment. Notwithstanding that, he wanted to. continue to encourage the Winter Lodge and neighbors to work closely together ~o mitigate noise problems in that area. With respect to the f,)rmer Chuck Thompson site, he did support continued recreational u~e along the lines of what council Member McCown had recommended, 0~/~3/94 73-93 but at the same time he did not want to exacerbate noise problems for the neighbors. He preferred a low intensity recreational use on the site without lighted courts, which would not create additional significant noise problems~but would meet the intent of the voters and provide a critically neededrecreational use for the Midtown neighborhood. Council MemberRosenbaum recalled that in the background of a discussion which he had with Council Member McCown regarding the use.of the site was a proposal for housing for the developmentally disabled. He did not know whether the City’s contribution of $20,000 had any impact on the staff recommendation, but he was not prepared to rule out that possibility. He asked Council Member McCown what her thoughts were o~ the subject. council Member McCown did not believe the motion ruled out that possibility,~ butPhase I of the CSI proposal was intended to use the site as it existed. The Second part of the motion was to pursue low intensity recreational Uses; and if that were success- ful, a package wou~d be put together and returned to the Council. If a suitable package ~ere not put together which was compatible with the neighborhood uses or acceptable to the Council, then other possibilities could be pursued. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that if it were possible to keep the site for recreational use only, then Council Member McCown would not want to consider the housing for the developmentally disabled. He was concerned with the application of the PATC. Council Member McCown had suggested that the PATC and CSI should get together. The PATC had identified an important potential use for the facility since there had been an increase in USTA team tennis in Palo Alto and there wasnot a good facility for the teams; to play. Based on his experience of organizations getting together, if the option to csI were awarded, he did not know what the basis would be for the two to negotiate. He believed it might be a good idea for the Council to delay its decision and ask the ~wo organizations to try to get together. Since CSI was putting up the bulk of the money, it should be entitled to the bulk of the use of the tennis courts. It was conceivable that a joint arrangement could be" worked out, but he did felt it would not be possible if the Counci! awarded the option to CSI that evening. C~u~_pci~==~_l Memb~r_M C_Coq~ felt there was a logiqal Pa~tq~rship between CSI and pATC In the Phase I approach .of reusing t~ and ~so the other use of ~he "’~ite might involve something si~-flar to what Council Member Rosenbaum said. She included in .both parts ~hat the conc@Dt of the use of the site would be pursued with both ~ rganlzatlons to~it~e~. ~e"’Ph~S~ I proposal was speQifically m~e 5~SI~l’~ne. S~e asked ~h~ther that could be pursued with both organizations by a direction to staff to determine a joint option ~o lease could.be brought forward. Her main intent was to bring ~he two organizations and their resources together with staff to pursue what other uses could be done for the remainder of the site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 :18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At t ach--~o~ent D that permit to construct or revise the fencing between their respective properties. In the event that conditional use pe[mit 96-UP-I, 98-EIA-6 is invalidated by final court order, or in the event that CSI determines to exercise its rights and obligations under that prior permit, it is underst$od and agreed by all parties that CSI may exercise all rights and obligations under prior conditional use permit CUP No. 77-UP-10. 2. MRHA and CSI agree that a revised plan will be submitted by CSI to CITY’s Archite~tura! Review Board for approval which relocates the bathroom facilityas previously submitted to ~he Architectura! Review Board away from the property of MRHA and orients it adjacent to and facing the existing four tennis courts and CSI will not construct that bathroom facility unless its location and orientation as so designated are approved by the Architectura! Review Board. 3. MRHA and CSI agree that a revised plan will be submitted by CSI to CiTY’s Architectur~l Review Board for approva! which does not contain any practice backboard~, permanent tiered seating, night lighting facilities for the tennis courts, or amplified sound facilities, a~d CSI will not thereafter request approva! by the Architectura! Review Board for any such facilities without approval of a new Or revised-.co~ditional use permit following public hearings. MRHA and CSI agree that any permanent seating at- the site shall be bench seating. 4. MRHA and CSI understand and agree that CSI may utilize temporary movable tiered seating for occasional-functions related to tennis use, which seating shall be no more than eight feet (8’) in height measured from ground leve!. In the event that 990430 syn 0043678 2 Royston Hanamoto Alley Abey 225 Miller A\’el’a)¢. Mill \-’alley. CA 94941 415 3~3-79Q0 Fux: 415 3~3-1433 &ttaehment E MEMORANDUM February 24, 1998 TO:Lisa Grote~ City of Palo Alto FR.: Cordelia Hill, C.I.P. Design Consultant RE:Design Impacts of the Proposed Sound Walls at the Winter Lodge Tennis Facility Review of the proposed sound walls at the Winter Lodge Tennis Facility, as shown in the drawings prepared by Deva Landscaping dated 2/I I/98, raises concerns on several design issues. ¯The height of the walls will result in a fortress-like appearance to the property. The negative impacts of the 8’ and 10’ ,,vall heights detailed below should be considered by adjacent property owners in addition to the noise nuisance. The majority of the noise from play occurs ih the four feet next to the ground, with . only serves and overheads creating noise above this height. A reduced height should be deliberated, when the other factors of shadow, wind and mass are considered. The wall~, particularlyat the ten foot height, Will present a mass similar tO that of a building, without the articulation normally present in a building. As the walls will be viewed primarily.from .a close distance, the apparent heig, ht of the walls will be similar to that of freeway sound walls. : Care must be taken in the final design of the walls to break up the apparent mass. Mitigation for the apparent mass could be achieved through articulation of the panels wi£h texture, bandifig, etc. Another possible means of mitigation would be to offset the individual panels slightly, to break up the flat vertical s.urface. The walls on the north properW line at both the 8’ and I 0’ heights will caste shadows over most of the yards of the adjacent property for the majoriW of the year. In addition, if the walls are constructed at a I 0’ height, they will cast a shadow onto the actual structures. Adjacent property owners should be made aware the loss of light that will result. Pril~ciFd~: R,ben N Rt,.\’sttul FASLA - En~dtu~ A~a H;mamoto FASt...\ - Emeritu~ Louis G. Alley AIA ASIA Kaztm AI~’) ~[.A L 1037 Harold N. Koba~a~hi ASI~I. I I IS l~arha~a D. l.undhur~ ASlak L 15~1 William E. 1:~ AS~-k AICP 1. 2537 U,rde~a L. Hill ASLA APA L 2~24 M.um¢l.l Anu¢ King ASia\L 32-71 C’r;fiS B. Hanchett ASI--\ I. 1241 Douglas Nelson ASI..:\I. 2t¼7 Adit.~z~ Ad\ :~ni AS [ak D;miclle Nl.~cholk:t ,~1 ~k Lisa Grote City of Palo Alto 2 March 3, 1998 The wind patterns created by the walls will impact adjacent property owners, though a ’l~reen screen’ could reduce these impacts substantially. The green screen should be included asa requirement for development. Further reduction in wind velocities could be achieved by including small ~penings in the base of the wall. However, this could reduce tl~ sound buffering impacts of the walls. As- detailed in the attached report by Deva, the construction of the walls will result potentially in loss of five mature trees along the property line. Thes~ trees serve as a visual separation for the property and should be replaced. Two of those trees are in poor condition and would be removed regardless of type of construction. However, if concrete block is.selected as the building material, three additional trees would.be lost. Use of wood as the building material would reduce the stress and potential tree loss. Th~se losses should be offset by Palo Alto’s tree replacement requirements of two boxed trees for every loss of mature trees, Sincerely, RO.YSTON HANAMOTO ALLEY & ABEY l,," Cordelia Hill, ASLA P rincipal Attachment F~ (Received Oct 2, 1998 by ~e~t cf P!annin~ ~nd Uo~,.~.~nit.~ Env ir on;..~d ent ~ / ! , / / Attachment G }LLINGWORTH & F ODK N, INC. /lllE Acoustics ¯ Air Quality 111/ M E M 0 To: From: Date: Subject: Ron Anderson/C{ty Council/City of Palo Alto Richard B. Rod "k.in, PE October 30, 1997 3009 Middlefi~Id -- Mediation Effort I am writing this memo in response to a letter received today from Jeff Pack of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. and a telephone conversation with Mr. Pack. He conducted additional noise measurements of tennis play of the type that would be representative, in his opinion, of activities that would occur at Winterlodge. The new data would support assuming a lower noise level for the noise of tennis play. His analysis confirmed that approximately a 9-foot source height would be appropriate for an adult serving. Using his data, he proposes a 9- foot barrier at an alternativelocation adjacent to the courts along the west property line, a 10-foot barrier adjacent to the courts along thg north property line, and no barrier along the east side of Court 5. While his data increases my comfort level regarding likely conformance with the noise ordinance, I hesitate to discount the data that Dr. Salmon has gathered. I suggest constructing a 10-foot barrier around the west, north and east court boundaries as an ¯ alternative (Figure 1). The 10-foot barrier along the north property bounda~, we concur, is the minimum necessary. The 10-foot barrier.along the west property boundary (1-foot higher than Mr. Pack recommends) would provide a definite break in the line-of-sight between a oerson serving and a person standing in the rear yard. While Mr. Pack’s data indicates that ~he 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) !i ATTACHMENT H PLAN SET 3009 Middlefield Road] File No. 00-ARB-43 Plan set (for ARB members and project file only) 3009 Middlefield Road Page 10 Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 Attachment D planter along that side of the property which would provide richer landscaping that would have a much more important effect. I think that the exterior materials should be plaster. It should not be [EEIFS]. I think the bands should come back as something that is integrating with the architecture and not something of unknown nature right now that have some element of interest. I think the alley condition has to be cleared up. If it’s not accessible, if it’s not usable by that property, then we need to know it because it affects the circulation and the site plan in a major way. I’m not sure. The ADA issue’which is not clear from this application needs ~to be cleared up as well. Okay. That’s my motion. BM Maran: I’ll second that motion. BM Lippert: Abstain. Chairman Bellomo: That motion passes 3:0 with one abstention. Thank you. The next Item on the Agenda is Item 2. It’s new business. It’s a minor public hearing: 3009 Middlefield Road [00-ARB-43]. Request by Winteflodge, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the north, west, and east property lines at the rear of the parcel. Zoning District: PF Public Facilities. StaffRecommendation, and we have cards. Three minutes. NEW B US1NESS Chairman Bellomo: Hi, Rachel. StaffRecommendation: Staff: Good morning. Thank you, Chair Bellomo and Members of the Architectural Review Board. The project before you this morning is the design review of a sound wall that will be constructed at 3009 Middlefield Road. The project site is owned by the City of Palo Alto and is currently leased to Community Skating Incorporated for the purposes of operating a public recreational tennis facility. The site currently contains four tennis courts that have fallen into disrepair. Community Skating is planning to refurbish those courts. However, before that can happen, the City Council has mandated that a sound wall be constructed along the rear portion of the west side property line and along the full length of the north property line to mitigate any potential noise impacts related to the tennis facility. Along with mandating the sound wall on two sides of the property, the Council has also indicated that the wall needs to be ten feet tall, that it needs to be airtight construction, that it need to be constructed of either masonry block, masonry panels, or concrete panels; and that it needs to have a surfaced weight of at least 3 pounds per square foot. The construction of the west side and north Side sound wall was also reaffirmed by Council, and a lease option amendment that was approved in January of this year and again in the Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 lease that was recently finalized between Community Skating Incorporated and the City of Palo Alto. Community Skating is also proposing to continue the sound wall along the rear portion of the eastern property line adjacent to condominiums. This portion of the wall is not specifically required by the City Council, but it is desired by the Applicants for visual continuity and further noise protection. The effectiveness of the sound walls and the potential environmental impacts associated with the walls have been thoroughly studied over the last five years. The wall specifications that were approved by the City Council are the results of 11 separate acoustical analyses, the most recent of which was completed by [Elingsworth & Rodkit] in October of 1997. There were also concerns about potential impacts to air movement along the north property line and the loss of tress that could result from the construction of the wall. These are proposed to be mitigated by a two-tiered green screen along the north property line for the air movement impact and also the replacement of removed trees at a general 2:1 ratio. The wall also has the potential for a aesthetic impacts which the Board is primarily here to address today, and it was the Council’s opinion that these impacts could potentially be mitigated through design elements such as texture, articulation, banding, and color. Again, I want to emphasize that the Council has mandated the north and western walls be built before these existing courts can be refurbished and used. Therefore, the Staffis recommending that the Architectural Review Board review the design and visual quality of the wall and make a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. We do have today Linda [Jensen] from the Winterlodge here to speak to you as well as the landscape architect for the project, Mamie [Barns], if you have any questions. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Any questions? Is the applicant here to make a presentation? BM Komberg: I have questions for Rachel afterwards. Jack [Morton], Community. Skating, InC.: My name is Jack [Morton]: I’m president of Community Skating, Inc. We are happy to be finally here before you this morning. It has been 16 years since the voters approved the exchange between, they gave the City this parcel as community recreation. The RFP [issue] that CSI responded to was issued by the City Council or at least was issued in response to an October ’90 Director from the City Council for Midtown recreation project on the former [Chuck Thompson] site. During the 11 years since the City instructed Staffto issue that RFP, we have spent unlimited number of hours working with City Staff, the Council, and the Community to present you this project. The conditions governing the project have been specified as Staffhas mentioned by many, many hours and ponderings by the Council and also by a legal settlement between Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 Community Skating, Inc., and the Midtown Homeowners Association that bordered on the south part of the property. The lease has now been signed, and the condition ofthat lease is that we build the sound wall before we can proceed to provide to the community the sort of community recreation that Winterlodge is rightly famous for. Linda [Jenson], the Executive Director, myself, and Sheryl [Keller] from the Board are here to answer any questions you have about the required wall. We also have [Alanzo], the wall contractor, here to answer any technical questions. Marnie [Barns], our landscape architect, is going to present the project to you. Marnie [Barns]: Hello, good morning. I thought I would quickly walk you through the choices that we’ve made in the designing of the wall, and we were quite constrained as one can imagine at this point being mandated by the City Council. The first was in our choice of the construction ofthe wall. Our concern was primarily with minimizing root damage. There are a number of trees on both sides of the property line, and although the trees on the Winterlodge side pretty much have to be removed, I have a chart here in color if you want to see it, the [trees] on the other side are of great concern and we want to keep those. So, the construction of the wall that we have chosen has minimal footing damages at 20 foot intervals, and so that [was] the first choice. We also looked at the possibility of doing a rhythm of the wall and moving it in and out to articulate both for design purposes and also to .protect the trees, and we were advised by the City, I’m sure if it was the Real Estate Section or the Legal Section, that the City was uncomfortable with creating pockets of City land that were inaccessible on the backside. So, that had to be scrapped. We are dealing with a linear wall that goes the full length of the property line as close to the property line as possible ten feet high. Then we looked at colors and patterns, and since there will be a screen on our side fully planted, double layered; our primary concern is with the appearance of the wall on the far side on the neighbor’s side so they have what is called the primary side of the wall design in this .type of construction. Because the wall is ten feet high and they will be up close to it, that verticality is an element we want to try to counteract. I think on the board was this picture here which is [ship lot], and so we’ll have the horizontal element to minimize the height. It will also have interim posts, fake posts if’you will, so the panels will appear to be in ten foot segments from the residential side. On the Winteflodge side the length of it is actually going to be more apparent than the height because you’ll be seeing it from a distance and it will run the full length of the property, and so we are proposing something similar to this for the Winterlodge side. You have not seen this, and I’ll bring this up to you. We cannot have the crown moldings on both sides so the primary side, the residential side, will have the top roll. Our side will just be smooth. We are not proposing any [fenials] on the posts again because of the height issue. We want to try to keep it down. I’ll bring this up along with the [biscuit] of the color that we’re proposing. We’re proposing [interwood] color as a maintenance concern. There will be some variation from panel to panel. That is not at this point considered to be problematic. There’s so few panels for each residence [that] they’re not Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 going to notice it. Our side is going to be screened, and it will prevent us from having to access the backside and paint it continuously. So, let me pass these up. The thinking on the color was, first of all, we didn’t want it to be too light because the wall looks too big. We didn’t want it too dark because it’s a huge piece often foot wall and [on] some of these properties the back yards are only 20 feet deep. So, we wanted something in the midrange and then started looking for guidance. We didn’t want it to be too strong of a color to impact the neighbors and their selection of plant materials up against it. So, we decided that we would take weathered redwood, and I brought in a board of weathered redwood for you to take a look at; and the biscuit that they chose, the color that we chose, is slightly warmer, slightly redder tone than that. This is really very silver, the piece that I brought in today. Still, we thought if we selected a color that would fade into the background and not match, but try to at least be in the genre of weathered redwood fence, that that was our best bet. So, I did bring the color chart if you want to take a look at that as other options and choices, but that’s pretty much where we are at this point in the design. So, questions? Chairman Bellomo: We’ll have some questions for you. Kenny, do you have questions for Staff?. BM Kornberg: Yes, we do. I wasn’t able to get to the property on the other side of the fence, but I was wondering if you could explain to me on the other side of the property line where the fence will be what are the parcels and are they single-family, multi-family, commercial? You said that the Council mandated the north and west side to have property lines, but there’s a third property line that also has walls. So, I’m just confused what they’re actually requiring the wall to be and what’s on the other side of that. Staff: Yes, Board Member Kornberg, the west side of the property line, which would be the [Elseworth] Court side, is primarily residential. BM Kornberg: Can you point that out? Staff: It looks to be the back, the top side. So, if you’re looking at your plans, the side that’s. BM Kornberg: This is west then? Staff: It is for the purposes of this orientation. So, that is primarily residential. On the backside there’s some, I believe, single-family and multiple family residential. BM Kornberg; But that’s a creek. Staff: Right. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 BM Kornberg: Concrete. Staff: It’s concrete channelized. Matadero Cannel runs between. BM Kornberg: About 20 feet wide or so? Staff: I actually believe it’s significantly wider than that. Marnie [Barns]: It’s to scale on your sheet back there. It’s quite wide. It’s 50 or 80 feet. BM Kornberg: So, it starts where that tennis court fence stops right now? Staff: The wall? Proposed wall? Yes. BM Kornberg: The proposed wall location. Staff: Yes. BM Kornberg: So the mandate was from the location of the current edge of the tennis court fence to the property line, and does it have to be on the property line itself? Staff: Yes. BM Kornberg: Or would they allow us to move it in? Staff: It was mandated along the property line. BM Kornberg: Was the thickness of the wall mandated also, or is that up to discretion? Staff: It was not. It was just mandated a minimum of 3 pounds per square foot. The Applicants are proposing I believe a 4 inch thick wall at this point. BMKornberg: So, when they have footings for this wall for wind or seismic, are they allowed to go into the concrete of the channel itself? Staff: No, they need come as close as possible to the property line while staying out of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement. BM Kornberg: And the fence will remain adjacent to that? Staff: Yes, all existing fencing on adjacent properties is proposed to remain. Mamie [Barns]: Excuse me, though, the hurricane fencing along the creek will be removed. The wood fencing along the residential side will [all] remain. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 9 BM Komberg: On the west property line, which [was] the first one we were talking about, would it be possible within the City Council’s instructions to remove the tennis court fence that would then be right up against that concrete and use that wall as a backstop or something that’s integrated with the tennis element? Staff: We’d have to ask the operators of the tennis courts whether or not that wouldbe a feasible alternative. The Council simply mandated that wall. [The] fencing that exists for the courts on the Winterlodge side is a different story. BM Kornberg: What I’m getting at is that you have this ten foot element and if you put a tennis court fence right in front of it, I think it’s creating an aesthetic problem we could somehow resolve if we could Clarify whether that wall could be compatible with tennis use. Staff: Okay. BM Kornberg: Then continuing, and that would be the north property line, is it one residential zone, the entire width of that north property line? Staff: Yes. BM Kornberg: And that’s all single-family or muki, or what? Staff: Single-family. BM Kornberg: And are there yard setbacks there, or what exists on the other side? Staff: Well, the yard setbacks vary anywhere from about 20 feet at the closest to the wall to about 30 feet. The closest residence is 20 feet from the proposed wall. BM Kornberg: And the planning that we see, is that mostly on City property or is there also planning that’s on neighborhood property? Staff: It’s on both sides. If you look at actually the first sheet of your plans, it illustrates that there are several trees along both sides of the property. The goal with the spacing of the post and beam construction is to retain all the trees on the neighborhood property obviously, and if trees need to be removed it would be on the Winteflodge side of the property. BM Kornberg: So, any footings that you’d require for this wall would not be on the neighborhood property at all? Staff: Correct. Architectural Review Board i0 May 3, 2001 BM Komberg: And in erecting this wall would you have to cut trim severely or affect the neighbors’ planting? Staff: I believe that Ms. [Barns] can address that. Marnie [Barns]: The trees will need to be cut up to a 13 foot height to slip these panels in. In what would be their lower right comer, there are some overhanging trees which will need to be.pruned back pretty dramatically. There’s one pine which will have to be lh%ed, but those are all very mature trees and can tolerate pruning to 13 feet. The/re a good 40, 50 feet tall. BM Komberg: In order to erect this wall on the property line, do you need to be on the neighbor’s property to do some of the construction activity? Mamie [Barns]: I believe it can be accessed from one side only, is that correct? Yes. BM Komberg: I didn’t mean access; I meant the actual construction itself. Marnie [Barns]: That’s what an access for the construction? BM Komberg: Yes. Mamie [Barns]: Will all be from one side, it will be from our side. BM Komberg: On the other side of the City’s property line, what will be there? There’s a fence there now. Is that on the property, on the City’s property, or is that on neighborhood property? Staff: I believe that the fence on the northside, most of those are the neighbor [parcels]. Marnie [Barns]: Yes, we’ve had it surveyed and staked, and the existing fences are just on the inside of the private properties. BM Komberg: So, it is your understanding that that fence will stay, and it will essentially cover most of the wall that we’re proposing at this point? Staff: Correct. BM Komberg: The entire length of that north property line? Mamie [Bams]: Well, that would be the residents’ discretion. If they leave their own fence up, they will see four feet of the concrete wall above. If they decide to take it down, then they’ll be looking at the whole thing. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 ii BM Komberg: So, this is roughly a four foot extension above an existing fence that we should be evaluating aesthetically? Marnie [Barns]: Right, right. BM Komberg: On the City side have you, I saw that it required masonry or concrete, is brick masonry or stone masonry acceptable material for the City Council? Or does it have to be concrete masonry? Staff: I’m not entirely clear on that point. When there talking about masonry block or masonry panels, I’m not sure whether they intended it to be a stone wall per se. Perhaps, [Mamie], do you have.any better recollection of how that was intended? Mamie [Barns]: No, I think they were just trying to stipulate walls that would be solid enough to provide the soundproofing. BM Komberg: So, their intent is that density. It’s not necessarily the materials. Staff: It’s the pounds per square foot in the airtight construction. BM Komberg: Did you look at brick or stone or any other surface other than concrete for the use? Mamie [Barns]: Briefly, but it’s cost prohibitive. It’s a big, long wall. We think that with the patterning that we could achieve with the concrete panels we’re in the same ballpark. BM Komberg: The mandate for the ten foot height, that was ten feet from grade at any point, or is that an even level that you’re trying to produce around the entire property? Staff: My understanding is that it is ten feet from grade, and the property is essentially level so that shouldn’t be a major issue. Mamie [Barns]: I think there’s 18 inches from the cheek comer along the back property line to the other, so there may be two or three step downs but very small. BM Komberg: Then if you go along the, that would be the east property line, is that the same zoning on your neighborhood side as on the north side? Staff: No, those are actually condominiums. So, that’s multi-family residential development. BM Komberg: And those setbacks are the same? I’m not sure what’s happening on the other side of that wall, either. Architectural Review Board 12 May 3, 2001 Staff: Directly on the other side of the [Belevand], correct me ifrm wrong, is parking lot. Marnie [Barns]: Parking lot. Staff: That’s parking lot for the condominiums, and I think there’s a car port on the other side. Mamie [Barns]: Yeah, there’s parking lot which is, I believe, double in and out and then garage and residences above. So, that’s where the townhouses have the parking underneath and they live up above. I believe that’s pretty consistent along that pace. BM Kornberg: So, all the planning we saw there was on City property? All the foliage that we saw along that wall was City foliage? Mamie [Barns]: When you were on site and looking towards. BM Kornberg: [I’ve] seen this west, this east wall. Staff: There are a few trees on the condo lot. Mamie [Barns]: There are trees in the parking lot of the condominium. They’re young, but they are definitely visible. They’re probably ten, twelve feet tall at this point. BM Kornberg: Are those all staying? Or those are not affected by this ? Mamie [Barns]: Correct. Staff: That’s correct. Mamie [Barns]: In fact one of the trees that’s been removed is proposed to be removed by Dave [Doctor] to facilitate the growth of the trees on the neighborhood properties on that side. BM Komberg: You’ve mentioned, [or] has mentioned, that there have been extensive discussions with the residents and people on the other side of the fence. Did you propose this particular wall and its design and discuss that with residents? What was that process? Mamie [Barns]: The design has not come before the community yet. The whole issue of whether or not the wall should exist has been basically what’s been on the table to date. BM Komberg: I see. Okay. On the City side of the fence, you said that this treatment that you’re showing, this horizontal banding and these pilasters and columns, that’s what you’re proposing. In conjunction with what activity do you expect will happen on the City Architectural Review Board 13 May 3, 2001 side? As a designer I have a hard time proposing design when I don’t know how it’s going to be used. Marnie [Barns]: Right, fight. Let me clarify that the horizontal element is only going to be on the residential side. The Winterlodge side is the smooth surface. BM Kornberg: What does that look like? That’s just solid, sooth concrete then? Mamie [Barns]: It’s basically just a stucco type appearance surface, I would say, or light brush concrete. It’s not even a stucco look. BM Kornberg: Those are precast concrete panels, or what are they? Mamie [Barns]: Correct. BM Kornberg: What size are they? Marnie [Barns]: Well, the panels will be 20 feet unless we’ve had to juggle them for the positioning of the trees, and then it will have interim columns. BM Kornberg: So, it’s your understanding whatever it is on the City side is going to be completely covered at some point? Marnie [Barns]: Pretty much. That’s been stipulated because of concerns about the windl We’re required to have two-tiered screening along that entire back length. BM Kornberg: I’m confused about the two-tiered. One tier would be the concrete and the second would be [inaudible]? Mamie [Barns]: No, sorry, two tiers of planting so we have our wall at ten feet and then the first planting on the Winterlodge side adjacent to the wall needs to be eight feet and then something smaller than that, four foot range. So, there’s two tiers of planting and then the wall. The heights of the planting was stipulated to minimize the effect of the sun so the wall is still going to be the determining factor in terms of the shadow line, but the planting on the Winterlodge side will act as a foil for any wind which might:s~eep up and over. BM Kornberg: But when I look at this plan here, I don’t see how you’ll get two tiers of planting between the tennis courts and it looks like only a footer between the wall and the tennis courts. Mamie [Barns]: The planting screen is only mandated along the back wall. BM Kornberg: The north wall? Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 14 Marnie [Barns]: Yeah, the north wall. The section between where the tennis courts come up really close in that zigzag pattern, it’s not’be stipulated what should be done. I can tell you what I’m thinking of doing. BM Kornberg: .What are you thinking of doing? Marnie [Barns]: Well, I would like to put in some deciduous trees there. There’s going to be a lot of evergreen in the rest of the site s’o I want to have that a little more open, and my intention is to reestablish some sort of [riparian] habitat along that in those. So, it will be trees and an understory. As small as it is, it will help to bring the birds back. BM Kornberg: Rachel, do you know is it assumed that once this work is done and it allows the redevelopment of that area, that the tennis courts won’t be in that same location or they won’t be exactly as drawn? Staff: I believe the tennis courts are to remain where they are and they will simply be refurbished. Mamie [Barns]: They are, yeah. BM Kornberg: Okay, I guess that’s all the questions I have for now. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thanks again, Drew. BM Maran: From strictly dealing with the appearance issues for the moment, what is the density of this wall as proposed? Staff: The wall as proposed is actually 50 pounds per square foot. BM Maran: And what was the City Council’s requirement? Staff: The noise report required 3 pounds per square foot. BM Maran: So, this is roughly 15 times the required density? Staff: Correct. BM Maran: Why? Mamie [Barns]: There’s a minimum thickness to make it work. That would be my quick answer. Architectural Review Board 15 May 3, 2001 Staff: Concrete is actually 150 pounds per square foot of surface weight. If the minimum thickness to make the wall stand is 4 inches wide, then that leaves you with 50 pounds per square foot of surface weight. BM Maran: Assuming we need to use concrete. .Staff: Correct. Concrete or masonry. BM Maran: Okay. Mamie [Barns]: It’s also the narrowest material that we can use which does come into play with the shadow line but minimally. So, by using these concrete panels we’re keeping it as narrow as possible. If you’re thinking of masonry in terms of brick work, then we’re talking about a double wall. You can’t do a single layer of brick so you’re talking a lot wider. BM Maran: Which would actually get you a greater density. Mamie [Barns]: Pardon? BM Maran: Which would get you a greater density than even the concrete at 4 inches, you’re saying. Marnie [Barns]: Probably, yeah. Yeah, and also speaking as the landscape architect, it’s the [pure and beam] construction that I’m looking for to really minimize the root cuts. BM Maran: Have you considered any other forms? There are a couple of other materials available in a dense wall. For example, something called [Pise] or some rammed earth or something like that. Mamie [Barns]: I’m sorry. I’m not familiar with those, no. BM Maran: What is the noise that we’re trying to mitigate here? Mamie [Barns]: Well, perhaps the community can speak to it, but I will tel! y~r~-~hat has been talked about a lot in the past is the sound of the tennis ball hitting the racket and the squeak of the tennis shoe on the court. The concern is the courts have been in use although somewhat in disrepair, and the concern is that once these are refurbished and are then of the best quality that the best players will come and that they will be playing a much more intense game and that these will be going on all day every day, which is disruptive to some of the community members, some of whom are retired and want to sleep during the day. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 16 BM Maran: [inaudible] if this project is improved, but nothing can get done quickly in Palo Alto. I don’t know what is. Who’s paying for the wall? Marnie [Barns]: I believe it’s a 50/50 split, or Winterlodge is paying forit and the City has kicked in a set amount. [LiMa], did you? BM Maran: Could you come to the mike or whoever represents Winterlodge and whoever would be paying 50% of this wall? Jack [Morton]: The City has agreed to pay 50% up to $50,000. Those are cost concerns for us as well. We believe we can do the mandated wall for roughly $100,000, and we’re proposing to extend it from the condo side as well. That’s their preference. The issues are that we have a wall that is maintainable and that it preserves the sound integrity. So, having the panels is for us both cost and sound preferential. BM Maran: Okay, forgive me for seeming daft here. I’m having a hard time grasping the appearance issues relating to the function. You’re going to be covered for 50% or $50,000 by the City. Jack [Morton]: It’s a shared cost, fight. BM Maran: We get to pay for that much. On the condo side, those are two or three story condos7 Jack [Morton]: At least two story. BM Maran: And those. Jack [Morton]: Two or three. BM Maran: Why bother to put up a sound wall fight next to a two-story condo? Jack [Morton] :, There is an existing fence there now, and it would just simply preserve and make it continuous. Visually it’s going to make the space more coherent. BM Maran: Can you explain that to me? Jack [Morton]: You’ve basically got a fence running down the creek side and then along the back side, and so it’s going to stop dead in the comer. Our preference would be to complete that as a U so that it would come up on the other side of the site to what was, there historically has been a fifth court back there. We’ve agreed as part of the legal settlement with the condos not to resurrect that fifth court, but the Council has instructed us to come up with other non-intensive uses for that comer. So, we don’t have to do double construction at some point in the future. We’d prefer to have the wall completed in Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 17 effect a U so that goes from the creek side around the back and then up the other side parallel with the mandated creek side wall. BM Maran: Switching back to the materials and the density issue again for just a brief moment, I understand from what you’re saying then that the choice of concrete is largely based on the cost, that it’s the lowest cost material available for the density that’s been mandated. Marnie [Barns]: Cost and post and beam construction, yeah. BM Maran: Post and beam construction relates to the damage to the root structures around the foundation? Marnie [Barns]: Correct, correct. BM Maran: If there were other materials such as rammed earth, just pulling one out of the air, at a similar cost would you be receptive to that? Marnie [Barns]: Rammed earth I’m personally in favor of and would go immediately to. I have no idea, however, what the maintenance would be something like that. That would be my first concern. Jack [Morton]: And also the thickness. My guess, I’m not an expert in this, but my guess again as [Mamie] has pointed out, for the narrowness we can’t get anything with that sound density factor that narrow. My guess is that the concrete will turn out to be the narrowest thing and also the thing that would be most integral over the life of the wall. BM Maran: And narrowness is an issue because of the root structures? Jack [Morton]: And weight and density. BM Maran: I don’t understand what [the difference is]. Mamie [Barns]: My sense is that narrowness is an issue for sun factor. It’s minimal. BM Maran: For what? Mamie [Barns]: Sun. The issue of the sun. By the time we get a molding on the top to make it more attractive, we’re talking about 8 inches across the top. So, if we do, say, an earth wall which needs to be 8 inches to do something attractive on the top, even on once side we’re talking 12 inches. It begins then to become a sun issue. BM Maran: I see. It was said that you hadn’t yet met with adjoining neighbors to discuss the wall in general or is that overall? Architectural Review Board 18 May 3, 2001 Jack [Morton]: We haven’t got a lot of leeway here. Council has directed, it’s now specified and it’s both required by the legal settlement that if we do anything long-term on that side, we still have the issue with the condo people; but the Council pretty well specified what we could do. They gave us choices. As [Marnie] has pointed out, masonry. is just out of the question also because of shifting and [inaudible] splits, and then there’s air leaks so our preference is to have something that’s a continuous surface. Staff: IfI can interject briefly, the questiori of the placement, the height, the materials, etc., the parameters of the wall have been well debated at public hearings for several years. So, right now it’s just a question of the material of the wall, the color of the wall, again within those parameters. Now those issues I do not believe have been brought before the public before this project, but the idea of there being a wall where it’s going to be and the specifications have been well established for quite some time. BM Maran: I understand and appreciate what you’re saying. It’s ditticuk to evaluate the appearance of the wall without understanding some of the issues behind it such as what is the noise that we’re trying to mitigate because, for example, appearance. For example, a concrete wall could be pr.etty ugly, and maybe there are other solutions within that ten foot high wall parameter that would be better in appearance but for example, let’s choose one up, a plywood wall wouldn’t meet the requirements of the sound mitigation issues with the density. Staff: "Actually, a wood wall probably would meet the requirements for the 3 pounds per square foot because that’s not a lot, 3 pounds per square foot, in terms of surface weight. However, again, through this process of public hearing for the original project, etc., it was determined that they, I believe, one of the maximum noise attenuation available and so the Council did opt to go with the concrete and masonry construction. Also, it was thought that it would be a more airtight than a wood fence. BM Maran: Okay, I’ll make this my last. Just to repeat, the whole thing stems from an old complaint about noise and yet as we discuss the appearance of this wall the noise that we’re trying to mitigate is simply the noise emanating from tennis courts. Staff: That’s correct. The noise we’re trying to mitigate is from the use of tennis courts. BM Maran: Okay, thanks. That’s all I have. BM Lippert: A question of Staff. Has this ever come before ARB before prior to the City Council taking a vote on the recommendations? Staff: No, correct. It has never been before the ARB. This was a Use Permit issue originally that came up regarding the use of the tennis courts, and the sound wall was required as a mitigation measure, an environmental mitigation measure. The project was Architectural Review Board 19 May 3, 2001 conditioned to return to the Architectural Board to essentially design the wall, but no, the wall has never been before you. BM Lippert: Okay, I have a couple of questions with regard to I guess the acoustics of the wall. First of all, ifI understand the site correctly, the majority of the houses that surround it on two sides are single-story houses except for one property which appears to be over the creek on the north side which is a two-story residence and then on the, I guess south, no east, southeast comer of that parcel there are condominiums that are multi- story. Why a ten foot high sound wall when sounds travels in a linear fashion and any of the height above seven feet probably will not benefit anybody in terms of acoustical separation? Staff: Well, we actually have like I said 11 acoustical studies. The one that I’m looking at is the most recent prepared by [Elingsworth & Rodkin] where they actually determined that part of the noise that might resuk from tennis playing would be the serve, which would be assumed to be approximately nine feet above the ground. Stuck at the surface line in court 3 on the western side, which is the side with the two-story residences, and for the court that might have been proposed near the condos; the same way so essentially this was fully broken down in terms of height. BM Lippert: So, that’s if Magic Johnson or Shaquille O2geal were playing tennis here, right? Staff: Well, if you jump I guess. Anyway, so this has been broken down into very fine pieces in terms of how high the wall needs to be, and ten feet was what was ultimately concluded. BM Lippert: So, that would be the exception not generally the role, so they’re designing for the maximum so to speak. Staff: It does show in the barrier calculations also with the north property line that the conclusion being reached that the barrier must be nine to ten feet high in order to reduce the noise to 56 decibels which would be the maximum allowed on the property per the Noise Ordinance. So, we do have the calculations I believe included with the Environmental Analysis in your report. BM Lippert: Okay. With regard to having a wall on three sides, you’re aware that when you enclose sound, it bounces out of the space and travels and could impact properties deeper into the neighborhood? Staff: With the wall on the three sides of the property proposed, essentially the open side of the property would be directly into the Winterlodge on the parking lot and the Arco gas station heading straight toward Middlefield. Essentially, with the location of the wall on the east side you’ve got almost a four-side enclosure. And again, the 11 analyses, I Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 2O imagine that the noise bouncing around is going to be a far greater impact on the folks playing tennis [that are] in the Winterlodge than it would be on any of the surrounding neighbors. Jack [Morton]: IfI may interject here, the legal settlement with the homeowners does allow them under certain circumstances to come back and request that we complete that wall on that side, and just to forestall that in the future we’ve just built it into the plan so that there would be the three-sided fence. BM Lippert: I appreciate that, thank you. You’re aware that the most effective sound barriers are the ones that are closest to the point of source or where the sound would be perceived so that the most effective wall would actually be a sound wall that would be closer actually to the tennis courts or at the court apron. Staff: Again, that’s been stipulated by City Council. It is to be at the property line. BM Lippert: I understand that, but I’m asking if you’re aware of that. Okay. Jack [Morton]: Given the layout of the courts on the north and east sides, the wall effectively is going tobe at the edge of the courts. Currently now the courts effectively go to the property line on both those sides. BM Lippert: I think my question really is more along the lines of what’s going to happen to that little piece of strip that’s located between the chain link fence at the Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement and the, I guess, where the sound wall would be and where the chain link fence to the courts are. Marnie [Barns]: That is not mandated and so is up to the purview of me as the designer and ultimately to the City Staff, but that is the section I was talking about doing the [riparian] reintroduction of trees and shrubs. In fact, someone earlier talked about maybe the chain link fence on that end of the courts doesn’t need to be there, and Linda and I have had a discussion regarding that and that the tradeoffis we’ll have kids climbing through the bushes to find their balls, but that would be a preference to us as the clients. So, although it’s not really part of anything legal, our intention at the moment is to take down the hurricane fencing along that zigzag portion of the west side of the tennis courts. So, it would be planted and that second layer of fencing would be gone? BM Lippert: Actually the appearance of the fences when the purview of this Board and if landscaping is appropriate to mitigate that appearance, then I think we have something to say about that. Mamie [Barns]: Yes, I’m sorry. I must have been misunderstood. What I’m saying is that what we’re looking at at the moment is not the planting, but to give you an idea I’m telling you what the concepts are and has been discussed. Architectural Review Board 21 May 3, 2001 Jack l’Morton]: I think the point is that on the creek side, our agreements with the City don’t require that we plant that, but our intent is to plant that and not have what I think you’re concerned about is two fences there so that we would try to make that as natural as possible. It hasn’t been our preference to have the fence. The fence has been imposed upon us, so on the Winterlodge side we would like to make that as natural as possible. BM Lippert: Did you look at all at burming or raising the grade there in any way to mitigate the height of the fence, the height of the sound walls, so in other words doing a landscape burm and then building a less higher wall at the property line? Mamie [-Barns]: We have a full grading plan, and it’s a pretty flat type site. There is some burming to be done at. another point, but we can’t burm along the property lines because of the drainage issue. There is a high point of swale about halfway along what I think of as back but which is the north property line, but it’s minimal; we’re just talking about to get the water to flow. Along the creek I believe it flows offtowards the creek so we don’t want to burming there, and there’s really not much room between the courts and the wall. BM Lippert: WhenI say burming you could do a halfburm. You could do it so it’s almost like part retaining wall. Did you look at growing anything on the wall like planting ivy along the wall and having it grow up and having it be green on both sides? Marnie [Bams]: Yes, actually that was part of the verbiage that came down the pike at one point, and that was eliminated when it was decided that the City wanted the two tiers of planting. At this point that becomes, a conflict simply in terms of maintenance, that the vines growing up the fence will also climb into the shrubs and pretty soon you’ll have a tangled mess. So, it’s pretty much either/or and so along that north property line, we’re not envisioning using vines though that is an option in other places, which actually we’re definitely considering. Ob+iously, we want to do what we can to make this look as soft as possible. BM Lippert: Could you review for me one last time why it is that you want the side of the wall facing the tennis, courts denuded of any ornamentation or articulation in any way? Jack [Morton]: Our understanding from the contractor is that because of the molding process that what .you call the primary side is the side that you get to design, and then the other side is a finished side. You can give it some texture, but you can’t do the delineation. Marnie [Barns]: The nature of the panels is that it’s a one-sided process basically, and we will have the intermediate colunms to break it up. You could go back in and do Other decorative things with Styrofoam trim, but we’re talking about maintenance issues. So, basically we’re giving the attractive side to the neighbors and doing planting screening on our side. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 22 BM Lippert: Did you look at using any sort of textured concrete block? Jack [Morton]: Again, the more you break it up, the more possibilities over time you’re going to have of leaks. Then it becomes a very labor intensive process, and then the expense goes up correspondingly. We have to do this within some sort of reasonable financial limitations because of the extent of the fence. So, we’ve look at what is the narrowest, the most sound, impermeable, and the most maintainable options; and there are the ones we’ve come up with. We’ve.spent a considerable amount of time looking at the options that are available to us and then of course the finances are one element in that as well. BM Lippert: One last question with regard to the tennis courts themselves that are eventually be resurface& What is the surfacing material that they’re going to be? Are they going to be clay cords, are they going to be asphalt cords, are they going to be grass? Jack [Morton]: Well, they’re currently asphalt cords, and this whole process of putting the wall in because it’ll be done from our side and it’s going to require that we basically set those walls up over that surface. We have to walt until the wall’s up until we find out what the impact.of installing the wall’s going to be on the courts, but our goal would be to maintain what’s there and simply upgrade it. So, we will continue to have them to be asphalt courts. BM Lippert: So, would they [be]resurfaced? Jack [Morton]: Again, that’s going to depend on what condition they’re in. If they’re resurfaceable that’s what our intent is, but we yet don’t know what the impact will be of the wall construction since all of that will take place in effect over the tennis courts. BM Lippert: The reason I asked the question is one of the concerns is the impact of the squeak of sneakers on the court. Could it not be a rubberized asphalt material similar to roads? Jack [Morton]: I’m not an expert on the running shoes versus asphalt and rubberized. I think you get some noise no matter what the surfacing is. I’ve not heard of soundless tennis courts, but those are things we can explore when we get past this phase. BM Lippert: I don’t have any further questions. BM Maran: I just wanted to ask really quickly, can you refer to Page L-2 on the wall details, what looks like the structural section of the walls, I see the piers and is it a continuous grade beam from pier to pier? Architectural Review Board 23 May 3, 2001 Marnie [Barns]: Yes, I believe so. No, sorry, our expert is shaking his head. Sorry, this is A1 fi-om [Printex]. I don’t even know your last name. He’s our contractor. Staff: It’s A1 [Lanza]. A1 [Lanza]: Yes, everybody [that drills] pier, 20 foot on center and no [grading] between. BMMaran: No [grading] between? A! [Lanza]: The [band] will set on the piers from [edge]. BM Maran: So, the wall section panel spans from pier to pier? AI [Lanza]: Correct. BM Maran: Great. And what then fills under the wall panels just graded up to it? A1 [Lanza]: Yes. BM Maran: How do you prevent erosion or wind-caused erosion from actually creating a gap underneath the wall panel between the panel and the [grades]? AI [Lanza]: You can either set it below grade, we can put grade beam between, not that we cannot do that if that becomes an issue. It’s not the way our system generally works. BM Maran: Thanks. BM Kornberg: I’m confused now by the narrowness issue. Is the narrowness mandated by City Council for that wall? Staff: The narrowness is not mandated. I believe the push to try to keep it narrow is based on the shadow impacts that would be greater with a wider wall. BM Kornberg: Shadow impacts meaning? Staff: Meaning that the wall will cast shadows on the neighboring properties. BM Kornberg: That’s based on the ten foot height. Staff: It is based on the ten foot height but not entirely. There was a shadow study done by [Deva] Designs much earlier in this process that compared the ten foot high shadow impact to the impact of a standard six foot high fence and found that they were not substantially different and certainly not greater than the shadowing resulting from the A~chitectural Review Board May 3, 2001 24 existing along the north property line in particular. -Shadow impacts werent considered to be an issue on either the west or east property lines. BM Kornberg: What I’m trying to understand fight now is that the aesthetic mandate that we have is to be concerned with essentially the top four feet of the neighborhood side of the wall and then approximately the top two feet of the City side of the wall. Is that correct that we’re assuming that planting or something will screen at least along the north property line up to eight feet. Staff:- I think your mandate is to consider the design of the wall in its entirety. Obviously, we want to not only concern ourselves with the top four feet on the neighbors’ side because there is the possibility that their fences would be removed in the future. So, we would want to make sure that the full length of the wall is as aesthetically pleasing as possible. BMKornberg: I’m concerned about the use of money. If you only have a very limited . budget in the areas that we can control on the wall, I’m not talking about the rest of the landscaping, but on wall itself if we put that money into the visible portions rather than the portions are to be concealed then maybe we could use nicer materials and better quality design for that area of most concern. Staff: I still think that we would need to be concerned that the nicer portion be fully on the residence side, potentially the full length of the wall. Again, on the Winterlodge side they’re willing to greenscreen essentially the entire wall so that it’s not visible, and I think that’s the intent of their looking to put the primary side of the wall in the residence side and leave their side be the not so nice side because that’s something that they can control. BM Kornberg: On the east side, that’s not mandated at all right now by Council, is that correct? Staff: That’s correct. BM Kornberg: Okay. Chairman Bellomo: A couple of quick questions. the site? Have you prepared a master plan for Mamie [Barns]: Yes, there is a preliminary master plan that was submitted to ARB a year and a half ago and was bounced back saying that since we were only looking at the wall, I should eliminate that sheet from the packet. Chairman Bellomo: What wall was that? what wall a year and a half are we looking at? Marnie [Barns]: This wall. Architectural Review Board 25 May 3, 2001 Chairman Bellomo: I’m confused because I thought we just heard that this was not reviewed prior to the City Council. Marnie [Barns]: It has not been reviewed prior to City Council. We tried to come to you earlier, and then law suits were brought so everything was arrested. Then, it’s been through a legal process and now we’re back again. Chairman Bellomo: So, there has been a master plan prepared that shows the overall parkscape of this? Marnie [Barns]:. Yes, on a conceptual level. Yes, definitely. Chairman Bellomo: Do you have that with you? Marnie [Barns]: No, I don’t. Chairman Bellomo: Okay, and the master planning included a landscape plan, tennis courts, park, how this area was to be used? Marnie [Barns]: Correct. On area of lawn, a looped pathway, a lot of screening around the parameter of all of it. Chairman Bellomo: Did it show the wall as well? It showed the areas of walls, this master plan as proposed? Marnie [Barns]: Yes, in that it’s on the property line. Chairman Bellomo: And it showed a general landscaping plan that’s two-tiering? Marnie [Barns]: Actually, that plan does not reflect the two-tiering because that was before that was mandated. Chairman Bellomo: So, we have no landscape plan that really shows the tiering? Marnie [Barns]: Correct. Chairman Bellomo: So, really what we’re reviewing today, correct, me, is the wall only? Staff: That is correct. Chairman Bellomo: Okay. This goes back to Staff, Rachel. Did we consider this February 24, 1998, from highly respected landscape architects [Roystan], Hamamoto, [Ally], and [Abby]; their discussion and recommendation on the wall? Architectural Review Board 26 May 3, 2001 Staff: Absolutely. Chairman Bellomo: How was that taken? What did you take from this letter? Staff: Well, essentially that came in with a series of correspondence that was being debated at the time the original Use Permit was being considered, and essentially yes it was taken into consideration. There were other studies brought in again by [Ellingsworth & Rodkin] and again discussion at the Planning Commission and City Council level both regarding that analysis. Essentially, it was taken into account, but what was decided were the specifications that appear before you. Chairman Bellomo: I see. So, why was this done? Why were they employed to write this report; [Royston], Hamamoto, [inaudible]? Staff: In the course of normal Staff analysis we wanted to obviously get the most and best information possible on what the potential impacts of the law were going to be because we were in the process of doing the environmental analysis not only for the courts but also what could potentially be the impacts of the wall. And again, so this was taken into account, incorporated into the Environmental Review, and through the normal course of review [other] things were decided, but it was taken into account. Chairman Bellomo: Okay. Is there a survey topographical map of the site presented? You mentioned that you think there’s around [an] 18 inch differential along the 197, we’ll call it the north wall. You think there’s around 18, two feet? Marnie [Barns]: Actually, my recollection is very fuzzy on that. We do have a grading plan, and I know it’s less than two feet. I think it’s actually closer to one foot, but I don’t have that information [handy]. Chairman Bellomo: So, grading and drainage will be handled on site, and the normal flow is obviously to the north since it goes towards the Bay. Again, you mentioned something about swale. How is the drainage since we’re asking for an airtight damn situation. How have you addressed this drainage here? Marnie [Barns]: The earth will be right up against the bottom of the wall is the plan, and it will if not be buried. It’s certainly up to it. Chairman Bellomo: The drainage, I guess I’m asking you to very simply how do you drain this area? Does it go back towards Middlefield? Is there a storm drain? Marnie [Barns]: There are several catch basins being proposed, and actually the site drains down the opposite does not drain. Architectural Review Board 27 May 3, 2001 Chairman Bellomo: It goes this~way? Marnie [Bams]:. Yes. It’s drains towards the comer. At the present moment there is one area drain in that comer which covers the whole site. We’re modifying that and putting in I believe it’s four more area drains throughout the site. Chairman Bellomo: Thatis not included in this package? Marnie [Barns]: Correct. Chairman Bellomo: And, okay, have you drawn an elevation if there is a differential of the wall how you’re actually breaking the wall up? Has that been prepared yet? Mamie [Barns]: No, I haven’t done that. Chairman Bellomo: Okay. And there will be no lighting, the courts are not used at night? Marnie I-Barns]: Correct. Chairman Bellomo: Okay. I guess this question probably was asked, and I hate to [belabor] it. What where the other approaches just generally post and beam whether it’s a pile-driven I-beam or however walls are constructed when they’re cementitious whether they’re panels or however? What other alternatives did you have besides a typical precast site wall? Give me some. Mamie [Barns]: Well, the only post and beam construction we’ve considered is what’s before you. The other options that were mandated by the City, the masonry and the concrete block, all require continuous footings. Chairman Bellomo: So, as far as the post and beam construction you basically went to [Printex] and that was where your design studies stopped as a landscape architect? Marnie [Barns]: Actually, we went to three different companies, but yes. Chairman Bellomo: Precast. Mamie [Barns]: Precast companies, yeah. I guess technically it’s not post andbeam, but it’s in effect the same. Chairman Bellomo: So, you had no other thoughts on it as a landscape designer? Okay, thank you. Any other questions? We have a series of cards. We have ten and we will be taking public testimony now. We will limit it to three minutes, and if you can keep your comments concise and not repetitive that would be fantastic. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 28 Staff: Also, can I add you do not need to lean into the microphone. The mike will pick you up if you just stand straight. It’s a very good mike. Public Testimony Chairman Bellomo: Okay, the first speaker is Lynn Chiapella followed by Herb Borock. Lyrm Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue: [inaudible] Chiapella. I sent you an e-mail to the ARB. It Was returned to me so I have no way to know if you received any of the e-mails to the ARB. So, I suggest you go to site. I hope that’s not my three minutes right there. The drainage was discussed on the southeast comer because that’s where the E1 Nifio and heavy rains always flood. I have to assume that was taken care of, that tlie wall will impact that. As I read the StaffReport it has not been mandated that the landscaping be on all three sides as per the Code requirement for the ten foot, I don’t know if it’s ten feet or fifteen feet, it’s something in meters, and that does leave leeway, I believe, especially on the creek side to either articulate it in some way or to leave some kind of a manageable plan where you could have some landscaping. But, Council as I know did not actually mandate it had to be on that particular property line. So, the landscaping is important. In addition to the landscaping is the removal of at least five, I think the removal is something like 23 trees or 98% of all shrubs and trees on the site, and there are at least five additional tress that are not marked because there are where it says four there are actually six, and where it says six there are actually nine junipers, and the aerials will clearly show that those trees exist. I do believe it should be a 2 for 1 replacement in order to get enough landscaping. The last thing I don’t quite understand is that you have a sound wall that was required between the Winterlodge Skating Rink and the condominiums. We’re now proposing to put a completely different type, and it’s a living solid wooden wall and it’s very attractive, I think, as attractive as they can be. Now, you’re proposing something like two-thirds back on the property in the middle of nowhere to change it so the condominiums now have a nice wooden wall and then bang, they’re going to have another wall even tall [of] cement. I don’t think City Council ever mandated that, so I think you really need to take a look at that. I’m very appalled that the landscaping didn’t come with it, and I thought Mamie [Barns] landscaping plan was very nice. Chairman Bellomo: Herb Borock followed by. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue: I’m sorry, the issue of payment of the landscape architecture must establish that it’s on the Winterlodge side and it’s not on the City side because there’s no funds for that. That is the City Architect doing that now. Chairman Bellomo: Followed by Jack Hsu. Architectural Review Board 29 May 3, 2001 Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good morning. I have more extensive comments in a letter I prepared which I’ll provide Stagfor the Administrative Kecord. That includes copies of letters I sent on this issue to the City Council on December 17 and December 18 of 2000. Let me just [hand it in] first. This project is not [held] properly before you because it’s piecemeal and in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act in that there’s no valid-Use Permit and that you just can’t do this wall separately from the rest of it just as you can’t do that little piece of the wall by the condominiums for some future use which nobody knows what it’s going to be. The Use Permit the Council most recently adopted was never used. The previous Use Permit also lapsed due to non-use and the court’s being locked for a period of over a year. In addition, there have been significant changes in environmental conditions, and those are evidenced by the fact of the process that went through from ’96 to’98 of having to go through an entirely new environmental review because of the .change conditions in the use of the site. We no longer hear what the site’s going to be used for. We consistently say it’s for the children, but it was always de.signed for the Palo Alto Tennis Club. That’s been the problem from the beginning. I’m disappointed with the Staff Report, but I understand why I am disappointed and that is we have essentially an entirely new current planning section since this whole process started the response to the proposal in the mid-90’s. The institutional memory somehow didn’t make it’s way in here so I have some comments to make and to the extent that they’re critical it has noting to do with the signers of the Report. They’re depending upon something else. On Page 2 it refers to the fact that the Settlement Agreement gave the Applicant the option of using an old Use Permit. That’s not what the Settlement Agreement says. It says one party, one group, says it’s okay to use whatever rights exist, but there ar.e no longer any rights there. It doesn’t bind anybody else in the City to agree that there .are any rights or that they can use the old Use Permit. It also says that they’ve chosen to operate under the Use Permit. They don% have the option to operate under the old Use Permit. They only have the option to operate under the new one. On Page 3 it says the environment effects have already been discussed and mitigated in negative declaration. Whether they’ve been discussed is in the approval of the City Council, and they’re in 1998 which instituted 45 conditions. Sure, and the sound wall is not exempt from variances. Finally, in terms of any lease sign, [when] the Council adopted policy only the Council can determine what those lease terms are, and yau can’t put in the StaffReport and say if and when it’s going to be signed it’s going to say that and then have the Applicant come and say it’s already been signed. It’s a consistent problem here throughout. Chairman Bellomo: Jack Hsu, if you would mind, state your name and address followed by Tom Meadows. Jack Hsu, 3048 Price Court: Ah yes, good morning. Architectural Review Board 30 May 3, 2001 Chairman Bellomo: Your name and address, please. JackHsu, 3048 Price Court: Correct pronunciation for my last name is "SU." Thank you. I live in 3048 Price Court, which is at the north side of the lot. rye been living in there for- over a decade, and I believe the City never had a complaint from me about the noise. I strongly oppose this ten foot high wall, the sound wall. [No deny] the one-tier request, neither am I going to. The reason being I think the ten foot high sound wall is going to completely block the scenic view of my backyard, and also it’s going to hurt significantly the value of my property. Based on the concept of the comment from the Senior Planner, Miss Rachel [Adacluts], this project is mainly based on or originated from the complaint about the noise. Since I am the one who has the longest [borderline] with this lot, I have never had any complaint and I’m not going to if it [stays] as it is, not fight now without any sound wall. So, as a public servant as you are, I believe your action is out of the benefits of the people. May I ask you a question: Who are the people? We are. I am the one who is going to be directly impacted by this project if this ten foot high sound wall is going to be built. [What] other people have the right to speak for me? I don’t think so. That’s my comment, and I request this sound wall not to be built. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Next speaker is Tom Meadows followed by Natalie Fisher. Tom Meadows, 3073 Middlefield Road: I’m Tom Meadows. I am speaking as an owner of the condo adjacent to the Winter Club and the now defunct Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Facility. Our condos which are the Middlefield [Homeowners’] Association are flat out of prose to any sound wall adjacent to our property lines. This wall would not be aesthetically pleasing to the eye or wouldn’t mitigate the sound originating at the tennis courts. The sound concerns we are referring to are bullhorns, loud speaker systems announcing tennis play, and crowd generated noise. As we understand, they wish to have competitive tennis play on Saturday and Sundays beginning at 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM, respectively, until dark. The City doesn’t require the wall along the condos property line, and it’s not in the Community Skating lease with the City. It is only the Winterlodge that wants this wall next to our property line. We recommend an east wall be constructed as originally proposed by the City’s Acoustic Engineer along the eastern side of courts 3 and 4. I have a picture of the property line where the wall is proposed for our property. I’ll be glad to share it with you. Also, I want to mention that two-thrids of our condos are on a two and three level building, and .therefore the law would not mitigate the negligible amount of the sound of these sounds to these units, if any. In addition, we will be looking at a very unsightly prison type wall. -Also, I want to correct a couple of statements that Mr. [Morgan] made where he stated that we had two-story structures, and this is not entirely correct. We have 24 units, and 16 of these units are both on the second and third floor. So, I rather doubt that the sound wall that they are basically considering constructing would really mitigate any sounds on the second and third level. Also, there’s Architectural Review Board 31 May 3, 2001 a grade separation of approximately 20 inches between the Winter Club or the tennis court area and our property. So, there’s quite a differenetial there in grade separtion. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Your time is up at this point. Tom Meadows, 3073 Middlefield Road: Also, there is an old [Duralex] cyclone fence near our property line which is not.apparent from our side due to foliage. So, we really don’t see this property line at all. Also, I got a picture here if you would like to see it. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court: Excuse me, I was told by Rachel we have five minutes. Chairman Bellomo: One speaker. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court: No, I was told by Rachel we have five minutes, not three. Staff: The Architectural Review Board has the right to limit, depending on the number of speakers, it says on the Agenda, to three minutes. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Tom. Our next speaker is Natalie Fisher followed by John Abraham. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth: My name is Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place. I agree with what many of the previous speakers said. The City is not requiting a sound wall along the condos. That is Winterlodge’s choice. However, the City is paying 50% of the cost so they’re going to be paying they require. That’s not quite fair to the City. My concern is about my own street, Ellsworth. The sound wall design is not going to protect those houses on Ellsworth which are closest to Middlefield because the wall will stop short. So, I’d like you to consider, find out, consult with an expert if it would be possible and effective to have the end-of the wall towards Middlefield curve around so that the sound will not get hit the houses where the wall is not rotated. Do you understand what I’m meaning? Am I making that clear? That’s probably a physics and architectural problem to solve, but I think there’s a real [viss] that those houses which were supposed to be protected by the sound wall will not be because the wall proposed now will stop short. I’m suggesting that the Middlefield end curve. Also, it wasn’t the City that decided that the walls should be on the property lines. That was the choice by [Rich Avage] and the Council to say, "Well, if that’s what you want, we’ll go along with it." The residents were always opposed to having the wall on their property line. The sound consultant originally suggested that the walls enclose the courts. [Rich Avage] said, "That would not be aesthetic for our players. They will feel walled in." Well now the neighbors of Place Court are going to feel walledin. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Natalie. Our next speaker is John Abraham followed by Sophia Deng. Architectural Review Board 32 May 3,. 2001 John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth: Thank you very much. One thing the StaffReport isn’t correct about is the lot, what it includes. That parking lot in the front is not part of the parcel. It’s all in the official survey I got. The official survey was in the lease and everything else. There shouldn’t be any questions about that. To go on to more relative things perhaps, on our side, Ellsworth, we wanted a wall on our side. The people on the other side they’ll make their own case, but for our side we do want it. We have had noise problems in the past. When Chuck Thompson ran it we had repeated problems. You cannot use your backyard. You cannot carry on a conversation when those courts are in. full use. We get on Ellsworth Place the broadside noise from the four courts. We get by far and away the worst noise, so we want that. The wall is supposed to cut the noise by 8 decibels according to Mister [Rodkin]. We have avery quiet ambient 37 decibels on Saturday m0ming. If you can believe that, that’s very quiet. 37 decibels. That’s something we want to protect. That’s why we’re interested in the lease. So, we want a wall on the Ellisworth side. We also want the existing light standards to be removed as the City Council directed Condition 7 of their 1998 Conditional Use Permit. They made that explicit requirement. Everybody has been telling us we’re giving you the 1998 requirements that pertain to the four courts. That Number 7 is one of the conditions. We want those light standards removed. It’s in the Agreement, it’s inthe 1977 Use Permit, .you’re not supposed to have any light spillage. It shouldn’t be a controversy at this point. Please direct that those light standards be taken out. I don’t know why it’s not done currently. Let me submit a montage of the lights. You’ll not get the view from any other point. Those lights stick up. They will violate the 1977 and the ’98 ConditionalUse Permit. We would like ivy on our side of the wall if we get to that. The best I’ve seen is the St. Mark’s Chruch, 600 Colorado Avenue. Beautiful in the past, the ivy loves that wall. For some reason it does not like the wall at the YMCA. I don’t know why, but if you could get some kind of ivy on our side that would be very helpful. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Time’s up. I think Drew has a question for you. BM Maran: Just a quick question referring to the noise, what is the noise you’re talking about from the tennis courts? John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth: Two sources. One from the tennis hits, which is the main source. It’s irregular impulse noise basically. The other is from people talking. I would say 50/50 depending on who’s playing, but the tennis hit noise is really something you can’t ignore. It’s like a dripping faucet that continues all day long. It really gets to you. And the noice from the people, the people carry on conversations that carry very, very well in that very quiet area. If if weren’t quiet, I don’t know that we’d have this kind of a problem, but it does carry. BM Maran: You’re not talking about special tournaments and audience events? Architectural Review Board 33 May 3, 2001 John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth: Tournaments would exasserbate that, but even casual playing is quite loud depending on who’s playing. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Next speaker is Sophia Deng. Please state your address for the record and you’re name. Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield, Unit 203: Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield, Unit 203. I’m one of the owners of the Middlefield Homeowners’ Association. I’d like to make three points why we object to the ten foot sound wall. First of all, it’s the [lowest] of enjoyment of the sun, the climatic change in the area, the [lots] of trees, preventing the growth of vegitation in this area. It’s going to create some mold, dampness, and also this area on [inaudible] five, ifyoulook at that drawing, I’m not sure. I think you have the map. This area is very narrow on both sides. A ten foot sound wall, it’s going to create a tomb effect. It’s from an Eastern cultural point of view. On the Western cultural point of view, it’s going to create a prision effect, This is a catastrophy as far as the visual impact for us. I think the photo that’s submitted by Tom Medows, you can see how narrow that driveway, which is also a walkway between the wall, and also our second building back, which is a three-story high building. Secondly, and also this sound wall is going to produce a ton of, which is going to be also aethetically claustrophobic for us. There is a correction. Number two, the tennis courts are on the other side of our property, the ten foot sound wall would offer no noise to mitigate the noise. The noise source it’s going to come from not just the tennis playing, the squeaking of the tennis shoes, but also the cheering of the audience either causal playing or when there’s a tournament. I personally got a lot of negative impact from last week’s Winterlodge tournament, 27th to 29th. I’m pregnant. My baby could feel the noise. It’s not just the music but also it’s the screaming and cheering. I play sports. I’ve been in many, many tournaments before. When people get excited, you see most of the players making a score, of course you want to cheer. So, that’s the very natural reaction. However, it’s not suitable for [living] environment for us. I had to leave for three days, I came home, I still could not live with that kind of music and noise. Chairman Bellomo: If you can finish up, please. Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield: Yes, the last one is especially with this ten foot sound wall it’s not going to mitigate that noise because the sound does travel. It doesn’t meet an immediate barrier, and if you refer to Attachment G, I believe, the Acoustic Engineer, that’s done in 1997, regarding he recommended the sound wall to be built close to the tennis courts instead of fight along our property lines. Then, the last one: The fence. I think StaffReport information that this fence would not meet the requirement of the Palo Alto Municipal Court. However, the proposed sound wall is designed to replace the existing one and sitting right on the mutual property line. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 34 Chairman Bcllomo: Thank you. Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield: It provides .the function of a fence, and issue [follow] the Palo Alto Municipal Court provision regarding fence heights and all structural setbacks and variances are required. Thank you very much. ChairmanBellomo: Thankyou. The next speaker is Wei Wang. You have three minutes. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court: 3054 Price Court on the north side. When I asked my neighbors about their option on this wall, they said that if we allow these tennis [to] [meet] some barrier, then the lodge itself needs some barrier all around. The reason is because from far away they can hear every word the loudspeakers say, and this ten foot sound wall does nothing to it, will not help it. Some of these people live on [Rice] Road which is at least 500 feet away from the lodge. I live 200 feet away from the lodge. Every morning I hear people working there, then I hear music, machine noises. To me music or announcements from the loudspeaker is just loud noise. We have this long history of noise problems [that] can be easily proved by calling the police to complain about it and see what the police will say. I tried this several times, but I will skip everything because I don’t time. This is a five-minute speech. So, I’ll skip that. What I want to say is the City sould not and cannot use double standards to handle noise problems at the Winterlodge site, but if the City really wants to enforce Noise Ordinaces at Winteflodge Tennis Courts, I have a better solution than this wall. Let me start with a statement written by the Winterlodge people in the first paragraph of Attachment D of the StaffReport for this hearing. It states that, "The ruling of this wall has been made by the Council at the request of the neighbors on two sides." I don’t know ifI should cry or laugh because no one from Price Court [or] condominium wants this wall because it will replace all the beautiful trees see everyday on the other side of the fence and block light and the nutriant uptake of our trees that are there by the fence. This wall will be less than [a] ten step distance from our bedroom and living room window and the door. Out of the three sides of the wall, only the creek side, that’s John and Natalie’s side; only creek side neighbors do not have it on their property lines because they have the creek in between. Still, some of their neighbors think this wall isn’t a bad idea. Winterlodge has no obiligation to maintain the landscape and look of the wall on any of the neighbors’ sides. So, for creek side neighbors, who will maintain the look and the landscape of their side of the wall because their property is across the creek? From the wall, k will just be a 300 foot long 10 foot tall high cement wall, no fence in between and no landscape, just blank wall. That part you haven’t mentioned in all the discussion you had. That’s the wall that [would] face John and Natali% that side and not the Winterlodge side. In my opinion, a better Solution than [giving] this over a $100,000 wall on public land designed for public recreation permanently is to build a private side wall for John and Natalie’s property only. In that case, besides saving tons of money no one has to worry about maintaining the look and the landscape of it because the private wall will be across Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 35 the creek from the Winterlodge site. John and Natalie will take good care of it because they are the only two people who want this wall. Under the current Use Permit, which will [like]. Chairman Bellomo: Can you finish up, please? Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court: I’m sorry? Chairman Bellomo: Can you finish up, please? Wei Wang~ 3054 Price Court: Also, in case this public land has tobe converted to other use in the future because there are simply too [many] private and public tennis clubs, tennis courts in this area. No one has to worry about what to do with this wall. What I want to say is please don’t force this wall on people who don’t want it and only give it people who want it by clearing the statement made by the Winteflodge people in Attachment B of the StaffReport for this hearing from the request of the neighbors on two sides to add a request of two neighbors living in the same house. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Keith Slipper followed by our last speaker, Claire Geber. Keith Slipper, 3060 Price Court: Good morning. [Tia Gabe] is my wife, sir, and she’s left. Chairman Bellomo: Okay. KeithSlipper, 3060 Price Court: Okay. First of all, I might try to identify who I am and thank you for giving me a chance to speak. I’m Keith Slipper. I’m the owner and have been for about 20 years of 3060 Price Court. I’d like to answer a question asked by Mr. Maran. I’m sorry, I haven’t got my close specs on so I can barely read your names. He asked what consultation has there been with the people in the local neighborhood. I can tell you until the [inaudible] either this man or any representatives of CNS or CSI, or whatever the company is called, and I have never heard from the Council once. I’ve never had a communication, a telephone call, or anything. Only just one paragraph from Ms. [Outcokis’] report here: "It should be noted that the first ten foot high sound wall would cast substantially less shadow on adjacent properties and the 25 foot trees currently on the subject property," etc.,"Because the shadowing impact of the sound ~ is not considered potentially significant, no related migitation measures were required." I’m not sure I’m living in the same country as these people. If you look at this report, it casts shadow over my buildings almost all day. I’ve got an appraiser out there appraising my building right now. He estimates the declination in my value is going to between one and three hundred thousand dollars, gentlemen. As as result of that, I can guarantee you by the end of this week if this is approved, there will be a lawsuit against CSI and Palo Alto. I found out about this change at 10:45 last night, okay?. That’s why rm here today unshaven not in my three-piece [suit] getting ready with a tie to impress you all with status Architectural Review Board 36 May 3, 2001 and image. I was amazed to hear that I was going to get a ten foot wall concrete edifice built right on my property line. I didn’t think people did that in the United States. Here’s what ten feetlooks like from twenty feet: You go about twenty feet from me, okay. Let me show you what that looks like. Just [hold] on a second. I’m trying to put it up, but as you can see I have a little problem. The point I’m trying to make, gentlemen, is that this is enormous. Now, for you information I actually own hundreds of buildings. I’ve never had a situation even in the worst jurisdiction in the Bay Area, the more [inaudible] or something like [this]. This is a ten foot high wall. Look at it! You’re sitting where my people live, and you’re telling me there’s no impact from this? Are we living in the same country? I think some people need to get a new set of specs. I live in Palo Alto, I work in Palo Alto, I have an office in Palo Alto. Everyone wants to call me and talk about putting the property line back or the line for this [row, but] I’d be happy to meet them at any time. I don’t want the Wintergarden or whatever it’s called not to have their tennis matches. I’d be happy to meet them anytime, but in order to do that they have to call us. The other thing I want to point out is that. Chairman Bellomo: If you could finish up, please. Kekh Slipper, 3060 Price Court: Yes. The trees, again, I appear to be living in a different part of town than these people. I [did] one of the trees this morning. One of the trees which are used or being said to be casting sun shadow as a rule ten feet high and continuous on the property line have anything like a shadow that would be other than right onto a house. It doesn’t block the light from the gardens. So, what I’m telling you, gentlemen, is as a resident or occupant of one of the houses, as an owner of one of those houses who occasionally rents it out, I’m ademently against this building. It’s going to cause huge loss of value, and you’re leaving us with no choice but to bring it to the courts again. Why? Call us up. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you. Staff: Excuse me, ifI may interject, to respond to that gentleman’s concerns very briefly, Staffis not debating that shadows will be cast by the wall. Absolutley shadows will be cast by the wall. The situation is such, though, that when you’re doing environmental review we have to look at what would normally be an acceptable condition for that site, and essentially what we’re saying is that yes, the ten foot wall will cast a shadow. So will a six foot wall, and so do tree. Nobody’s debating that the shadows will be there. The Winterlodge representatives have also provided me with a letter that was sent to the man in question in 1999 stating that there would be a wall built at that site, etc. I believe they received no comment from him. Thank you. Kekh Slipper, 3060 Price Court: Didn’t get it, gentlemen! You’re certainly getting comment right now! Architectural Review Board 37 May 3, 2001 Chairman Bellomo: Seeing no further speakers to this Item, we will close the public testimony at this time and return to the Board for comment. Ken? BM Komberg: I think to sustain the credibility and objectivity of this Board, it’s important. for us to talk about the things that we’ve heard today and been reading. We’re entrusted by the City Council to in this case I understand not [to] talk about the acoustics of the wall. My own experience as an architect working with acoustical engineers for many, many years is that it’s an art. It’s not a science, and I have grave concerns that the acoustical value of this wall warrants the effort that the 11 reports and that the effect that tennis, the spectator sport, has is going to be mitigated at all. I think that the wall itself creates more of a problem than it solves. At the same time, if our only Purview at this point is to respond to the aesthetics of the wall, I have another series of comments, rm not very happy the submittal we received. It was very difficult for me to understand it’s impact on the neighbors and its effect it would have on the City’s property itself. My first impression is that has mostly a negative impact on all three property lines, and it has a negative impact on the City property as well. Those are the things I want to address aesthetically. I think on the channel, or the creek side prperty line, addressing just the creek side itself, I think the particular design that would sit on top of the concrete swale that’s on the property line is going to create essentially enhancement of the ugliness of that creek, and so will essentially extend the same concrete feature but in this case in a pattern that’s not related to what the creek looks like. I could imagine changing the texture of that wall and the nature of that wall so it’s monolythic in way that makes it look like it belongs to the culture of what that creek itself creates. I think even better it would be nice to put in landscape pockets on the creek side so that the wall itself could eventually be concealed or that the ten foot height would be minimized rather than extending the concrete nature of the particular expeience. Understanding that it’s required, I think that would address the creek side. On the tennis court side, however, I think the aesthetic design should be determined specifically by the use, and since we haven’t seen a master plan we’re not aware of really what’s going to happen. I’m concerned about the piecemeal nature of the submittal, and I think the submittal itself should reflect what that wall aesthetically is supposed to affect on the City side as well. I think if it’s supposed to simply face a tennis court, there are many, many solutions. I’ve seen around the world tennis courts which are fantastic whether they’re brick, whether they’re ivy, whether they’re whatever they are. There are particular surfaces that are appropriate to a tennis court that can be useful to the tennis court and make the experience of playing and using that side of the wall something really very nice, and I dont’ think the particular submittal, whatever it is we have yet to see an image of what’s intended on that side, but it’s something that I have a very hard time responding aesthetcially because I don’t know how it’s textured, I don’t know how it’s even constructed at this point. Looking at the north property line, I’m in tremendous sympathy with the residents who don’t seem to be the people who have asked for this wall, and I don’t really understand the Architectural Review Board 38 May 3, 2001 motivation that over the last few years has produced the need for k. At the same time, I understand that a lot of political,-social issues that are unrelated to what we’re dealing with, so on the aesthetic side I would ask that it should not be either the City Attorney or the Council itself that’s dictating the aesthetic control of that side, that we be given an opportunity to understand exactly what will be there at the time the wall is constructed. If in fact it’s a fence that’s six feet tall and we have only a four foot height to work with, then I would like the money on the six foot side to be reduced to the absolute minium which would a 3 pounds per square foot surface which could be many kinds of asbestos, not asbestos, but concrete boards that could be attached to a simple structure. Then, we would deal directly with the four feet above that in ways that the residents might be extremely happy with and not have a problem, and I think that can be based on texture, color of the things that are more appropriate to each particular that’s affected. Then on the City side of that same wall, that same frontage which is the north property line, I would recommend an aesthetic solution that is appropriate to the use; and not knowing what that is I simply can’t really address it. As far as the east side, I don’t really understand why we need to put that wall up. I think if it offends the people who are affected by it and it’s again going to be proposed in conjunction with the use of that side of the property that’s appropriate, then that would be a very easy thing to review. But, not knowing what it’s used for, knowing only that residents on the other side will lose significant quality to their livelihood, or their life, then I think that’s something that I can’t really address. I would recommend that it not be installed. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thanks, Ken. Drew? BM Maran: I would like.to thank everybody from all the different sides who’ve put a lot of energy into this. It seems to me that we’re being dropped into a very long discussion/debate issue and asked to comment on a very piece of that depate, and in doing so it’s almost as if we’re being asked to put blinders on so we’re asked to look at this wail only from an aesthetic standpoint. I think what I’m hearing from everybody on all sides is that it’s really difficult to do that. In just commenting on the wall, having said that, I’m opposed to the concrete wall. I also would like to see more specific design suggestions for the application to actually to tell us as [Kenja] said what specifically the wall’s going to look like, color renderings, etc. I’ve some experience with sound walls, lived next to two different ones in two different places, and they never reduced the sound. They always were ugly and they also were heat sinks. When they get pounded by the summer sun, they become really, really hot. It actually becomes ditticult at some point to grow things next to a wall like that on the south and west faces. It would be really easier for us if we were presented with the City Council’s reason for demanding a ten foot high wall. It would be much easier to comment on, for example, alternatives to this wall if we understood better what the true reasons for a concrete wall were at this point. Sound mitigation, why sound mitigation? I understand that’s the reason, but I don’t understand who’s asking for the sound to be mitigated. I have, Architectural Review Board 39 May 3, 2001 however, heard from the neighborhood people two opposing view so it seems that some want the sound to be mitigated and some don’t. If that’s the case, it also strikes me that we’re dealing with a mandate from a City Council that’s four years old. The mandate is four years old. The City Council is mostly not on the City Council anymore, and I suspect _ by the time this is resolved we won’t be on the ARB anymore. I’ll be lucky to be living. So, in summary, I’m opposed to the concrete wall.. I’m in favor of a dialog between both the Applicants and the people who live and own property around the Winterlodge. I’m also in favor of more dialog amonst the people who live around Winterlodge including the people across the drainage creek. I’m also in favor of some sort of a more sensible approach, for example, if people who live around this property bought into this property knowing that there were tennis courts or publicly owned recreation or publicly owned recreation area, what is it they expected in terms of a noise level. Is there a change? Is there a significant change in the use of this property driving some sort of significant change in the understanding of what their environment would be? It strikes me that there needs much more dialog and the dialog to be held publicly. It also strikes me that there needs much more flexiblity in terms of the Winterlodge and their approach to resolving this issue. Thanks. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Drew. Lee? BM Lippert: First of all, I’d like to thank the Applicant as well as members of the public for coming forward and reviewing all applications. I am very interested in hearing what members of the public have to say and consider that along with the applicantions and the presentations put on by the Applicant. So, your comments are particularly important in terms of formulating an opinion here. I agree with my colleagues’ comments, and I’m just going to add to those a little bit more. First of all, I think that no solution whether it’s a wall or a sound wall or a fence or whatever can be forced on anybody without the endorcement or support of the neighbors. I think that we can either deny or approve this application today. It’ll be appealed and go before Council, and the dialog will continue. What I am genuinely concerned about and troubled about in seeing this is the envelope of parameters in which this application is coming forward. First of all, and this is probably pretty important, is that this is a piecemeal submission. We have commented on the previous Winterlodge site and some improvements that came forward to us on the parking lot back in, I think it was either ’99 or ’89, and we had said the same thing to the same group of people, that this is piecemeal and we were assured that we would see what was planned for the adjacent site in the future. That still is not forthcoming. I think that we really need to see a master plan, and I agree with Ken’s comment, a master plan for how at least the tennis club site is going to be used in terms of landscaping, parking lot improvments, lighting, in association with this sound wall. Otherwise, all that we’re doing is we’re approving something in a vacuum, so to speak. It’s a wall. We’re just approving a wall. If that’s what I’m here to do, and that’s what I’m being forced to do. I’d have to deny the wall and let it rest on Council’s shoulders that they approved it. Architectural Review Board 40 May 3, 2001 Also, in reading through the very first paragraph, the introduction of the subject, 3009 Middlefield Road, the description of the project, it says here to allow the construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the north and east property lines at the rear of the parcel. West and east, I’m sorry. West and east property lines. North, west, and east property lines, sorry. The world along, I’m not a lawyer, but the word "along" doesn’t mean on the property line. It means in approximity. I don’t think that that was necessarily the intent of the City Council here that it be built right on the property line, that in fact there is some latitude here. I think that the City Council is looldng for us in terms of our judgment as architects to give them some guidance in terms of how this wall is going to look and fee!. Although I don’t have a problem with a ten foot high wall, I do have a problem with what happens on both sides of the wall and the way it works, the way it looks, how it works with the rest of the site. So, in conclusion, just to move things along here, I just want to say that the way it is today, I don’t think I could approve this in good conscience. My charge on the Board is to deal with issues regarding quality and character and how it relates to not only that property but the adjacent properties, and I don’t see anything here that’s compatible with the adjacent properties. So, I have some difficulty with it. Just one last comment, in my applicantion, both applications, the one I submitted to via a public member on the ARB, one of the first things that I put down and I was questioned on in my interview was to prevent what’s known as architectural blunders. I think that this sound wall if it’s not properly conceived is an architectual blunder. Thank you. Chairman Bellomo: Thank you, Lee. First of all, I think neighborhood outreach here as suggested is what we really have been taught here, that when there is an architectural element structure that affects [a] neighborhood, there is an engagement and basically a unification of the Applicant and neighbors that are affected by such a structure. I am a little concerned that there has not been that outreach. So, having said that, rd like to encourage from this point on the Applicant to outreach. It is a public facility, and I think those two words really do encourage that type of engagement with the public. Really it is the public that makes this facility go whether they’re outside of Palo Alto or inside that’s the key. I’m sure it’s happening. I respect the Winterlodge. My daughter skates there. They go to [Key’s] across the school. It’s a viable and I feel important facility for our neighborhoods and for the City of Palo Alto. I live across the street from a downtown park, and there’s a basketball that continually goes. I also helped design that park, Johnson Park. It’s part of the intrastructure. I knew what I was getting, but I wanted that type of use outside my door even though have been neighbors complaining about the public use, the noise, etc. Having said that, I think it’s really important to remind myself that this is a public facility adjacent to a neighborhood, a residential zone. Now, the question is how in fact can we create what apparently was mandated by City Council to encourage a structure that addresses what City Council in fact was trying to direct. Apparently, that direction was a Architectural Review Board 41 May 3, 2001 wall design what would mitigate sound apparently. That, I believe, was a wall that would be able to break up that sound and also be through its own articulation achieve a beautiful wall. I think there’s some work to go on the wall. If in fact, and I believe there is to be a wall on the east, west, and north sides; I believe through careful massing studies, careful design work, I think it can be integrated properly into the landscaping. I think how it’s done has not been presented, and what I would encourage is a few things: The possibility of a master plan showing the landscaping as it works and weaves itself in and out of this wall, again, I highly encourage a landscape plan. A survey and drainage plan clearly ¯ shows the slope of the land thus an elevation that would show exactly the height of the wall perceived from the tennis court and/or the residential units. So, I feel there are just aspects of this as my colleagues have suggested that we’ve not seen the whole picture, andI think that’s what’s lacking. I would, as I suggested in my line of questioning, I would like to see some alternative. What has been explored? How have you worked with the neighbors to resolve texture? Whatever type of wall this might be, whether it’s a simple concrete, precast panels with wood applied, if it undulates [and heights]; the acoustical studies do show a result, but I’m really quite clear about it graphically how in fact the acoustics are addressed to second floor residential. If in fact the private residentials at the west are [with] second floors added, what’s the big picture? I think that’s what we need to see. So, again, I really support the neighbors being here, the Applicant, and I would like to see it come together. I’m not so sure we have come to that point in our line ofquestion[ing]. It looks like John wants to. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Mr. Chair and Members of the Board, I think this Board has articulated your concerns very well. I think the community has expressed their concerns very well. Staffhas heard that, and to be perfectly candid with you, I disagree with some of the Board’s comments and I disagree with soem of the concerns of the community in that they haven’t been expressed before. We’ve heard a lot of those concerns, and we are attempting to address those concerns. I’ll be very candid with you. The project before you is what we are asking you to act on. If you cannot support it, then you should take that action today. I don’t think the Board will be able to resolve all 0fthe issues that are before you. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to resolve all of the issues that are before you without the Council making some further direction. I don’t think the Director of the Planning Department is going to be able to resolve all of these issues. I would suggest that you take an action on this Item that is before you explicitly described. I you cannot support it, then so do so and recommend that it be denied. The Director then has the option to either also deny the project or approve the project, and then he has the discretion to send it to the City Council. Regardless I anticipate that this going to be appealed and go to the Council. If and when it does go to the City " Council, Staffwill be very, very clear with respect to the Board’s concerns andconditions. [What] we would probably wind up doing is recommending that if the Council continues to support the wall as it is as far as materials and size and mass, that the details of that wall Architectural Review Board 42 May 3, 2001 be brought back to the Board for that review, but I think you should leave it up to the Council ultimately to decide what they have set before you and before the Department. Chairman Bellomo: So, what you’re really suggesting, John, is to expidite this. If we take - an action on it, it could expidite it versus suggesting that the Applicant take our suggestions working with the neighborhood doing all of what we’ve suggested and possibly coming up with another solution. Instead of doing that, deny it. Therefore, we expidite to Council, and [it] really has something to say, but what’s I’m hearing you say. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: That’s Staffs recommendation, yes. BM Lippert: I would take a little subtler approach. It is within the purview of this Board to send Items, to refer.Items, to City Council. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: No, it is not. BM Lippert: In the Code it specifically states that we have the ability within this Board. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: We’ll varify that, but I don’t believe that’s the case. It’s the purview of the Director to send actions to the Council. BM Lippert: It’s within the purview of our Board to make a recommendation to the Director that the Item do forward to Council. What I would suggest is that my colleagues on the Board what we do is we make a recommendation that this be referred to Council and specificially state what are concerns are. BM Kornberg: I’d like to make a motion for denial of this application. BM Maran: Second that motion. Chairman Bellomo: Any comments? If not. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Mr. Chair, you can include in that denial specific comments or concerns that you have which obviously would be forwarded under any circumstances to the Council. Chairman Bellomo: You want to do that? BM Lippert: I think that that’s particularly important. Chairman Bellomo: Okay. The rationale behind the denial. BM Kornberg: Well, I have a series, but I’ll entertain amendments to my series. In my motion for denial I would enclude that the location of the wall, the limitations as to its Architectural Review Board 43 May 3, 2001 materials, the limitions as to its variation in height and to its shape make the aesthetic nature of this wall almost impossible to be adequate or appropriate for the uses. Two, that the application of the wall be accompanied with the intended effect that this wall have on the uses of the properties. Three, that the height of the wall be allowed to be varied based on the effects that it has in the different areas. And four, that the actual location of the wall be based on not simply a uniform shadow effect and aesthetic effect but on the particular locations that it is, whether it’s on property lines or whether it’s in the middle of the property. BM Lippert: I’d like to add a couple of things to that. I think it’s also important that there be a cohesive landscape plan that we see in terms of the overall master plan for the site is going to be addressed and that in addition to that there is a recommendation in here that a consultant made that the wall comes back from the property line. BM Kornberg: That’s acceptable to me. Chairman Bellomo: I think we have to be somewhat careful about recommending, we’re denying this application and I think that needs to very clear, and not to really recommend recommendations or conditions placed on our denial. BM Kornberg: [Will we] not include a landscape plan? Chairman Bellomo: Those were all part of our public record in our testimony and our comments. Those things were fairly clear, and I think verbatim minutes would really indicate all of those issues Lee spoke to and that we’re tagging on to this denial. So, I just want to state that we’ve been very clear about the reasoning behind our denials and our concerns. So, I think they will read it. I’m sure Council will read all of the verbatim minutes. BM Kornberg: Is this structured well enough for you to write up? Staff: Yes. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Any item.that goes to the Council will contain verbatim minutes. Chairman Bellomo: We have a motion for a denial, and that’s been seconded by Drew. All those in favor? Various: Aye. Chairman Bellomo:The denial upholds 4:0. Architectural Review Board May 3, 2001 BM Lippert: I just have one last comment I’d like to make. Throughout this process I did receive .numerous e-mails from members of the pubic. Those need to be a matter of public record, and therefore they need to go through Staff at the City of Palo Alto. I will not read e-mails that are sent to me directly without going through Staffbecause they have not been made part of public record. So; in the future just addressing that for members of the public, please. Chairman Bellomo: We’regoing to take a five-minute break. Thank you. Attachment E u3 Attachment F Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 May 3, 2001 Architectural Review City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Board Attachment G MAY 3, 2001, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2 -- 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (00-ARB-43) Dear Board Members:~ Please condition approval of this project to require the same conditions that were approved by the City Council for the same use at the City Counci! meeting of October 13, 1998, as modified by the. settlement in the Middlefieid Road Homeowners Association lawsuit that eliminated the fifth tennis court and eliminated the wall next to the condominium development. You may also want to eliminate the wall next to Price Court. Attached are two letters from me to the City Council from last December about this project, without the attachments to the second letter. As described in those letters, the attempt to use an old use permit is illegal: The previous conditional use permit for a tennis facility on the site has also expired due to not being used for over a year, because the tennis courts were in disrepair and were padlocked continuously for over a year to prevent their being used. In addition, the negative declaration for the previous permit is no longer valid, and a subsequent negative declaration is needed, because the circumstances under which that project was undertaken require maj or revisions to the previous negative declaration "due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant ¯ effects". [California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulation 15162(a)(2).] The mitigated negative declaration approved for the new conditional use permit satisfies the CEQA requirement for a subsequent negative declaration for the old project. The major difference between (1) the old negative declaration and permit and (2) the new mitigated negative declaration and permit is the requirement in the new permit to abide by 45 conditions of approval, including sound wall composition and specifications, landscaping, site grading and drainage, lighting, meetings with neighbors, hours of operation, availability of tennis facility personne!, bicycle racks, obtaining a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, fire department access, enforcement of the noise ordinance, site visits by the Code Enforcement division, and prohibition of Page 1 of 2 j oint use by tennis tournaments and Winterlodge special events. A September 12, 2000, letter from staff to CSI (Winterlodge) indicates that staff will require some of the conditions of approval for the new permit, if CSI applies to operate under the old permit, but specifically excludes the requirements in the new permit for landscaping, and site drainage that were included in the April 25, 2000, Notice of I_ncomplete Application. In addition, the letter omits the condition that "Any violation of the approved ARB plans shall be- . considered a violation of this use permit." If staff is correct that the old permit can be used, then CSI can claim that it isnot required to abide by any of the conditions of approval for the new use permit, and there is nothing that authorizes the imposition of any conditions outside of the normal discretionary review process for architectural review applications. This is the most egregious action staff has taken in my memory. Sinc/e.rely, Page 2 of 2 Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 December 17, 2000 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 DECEMBER 18, 2000, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # 9 COMMUNITY SKATING, INC. TENNIS FACILITY Dear City Council: Please remove this item from your agenda, because there is no valid conditional use permit for a tennis facility on this site. Early next year you should adopt the 1994 staff recommendation to "reevaluate the site for other uses and provide staff with the criteria or parameters for alternate uses"(City Council minutes, June 6, 1994, summarizing CMR:293:94.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS EXPIRED Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.90.080(c) provides that a "conditiona! use permit which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect". Below is the complete text of section 18.90.080(c): (c) A variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit. The zoning administrator may, without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of one additional year only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the one-year limit, or the expiration of such limit as may be specified by the conditions of the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit. It has been over a year since the effective date of the conditional use permit that the City Counci! approved on October 13, 1998, the conditional use permit has not been used, and no application was filed prior to the expiration date to extend the deadline by which the conditional use permit must be used or be deemed null and void and of no effect. The effective date of that conditional use permit was the date that the last of three lawsuits challenging the approval was either settled or dismissed, which was no later than August 1999. The previous conditional use permit for a tennis facility on the site has also expired due to not being used for over a year, because Page 1 of 6 the tennis courts were in disrepair and were padlocked continuously for over a year to prevent their being used. In addition, the negative declaration for the previous permit is no !onger valid, and a .subsequent negative declaration is needed, because the circumstances under which that project was undertaken require major revisions to the previous negative declaration "due-to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects". [California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulation 15162(a) (2).] The mitigated negative declaration approved for the new conditional use permit satisfies the CEQA requirement for a subsequent negative declaration for the old project. The major difference between (!) the old negative declaration and permit and (2) the new mitigated negative declaration and permit is the requirement in the new permit to abide by 45 conditions of approval, including sound wall composition and specifications, landscaping, site grading and drainage, lighting, meetings with neighbors, hours of operation, availability-of tennis facility personne!, bicycle racks, obtaining a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, fire department access, enforcement of the noise ordinance, site visits by the Code Enforcement division, and prohibition of joint use by tennis tournaments and Winterlodge special events. A September 12, 2000, letter from staff to CSI (Winterlodge) indicates that staff will require some of the conditions of approval for the new permit, if CSI applies to operate under the old permit, but specifically excludes the requirements in the new permit for landscaping, and site drainage that were included in the April 25, 2000, Notice of Incomplete Application. In addition, the letter omits the condition that "Any violation of the.approved ARB plans shall be considered a violation of this use permit." If staff is correct that the old permit can be used, then CSI can claim that it is not required to abide by any of the conditions of approval for the new use permit, and there is nothing that authorizes the imposition of any conditions outside of the norma! discretionary review process for architectural review applications. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION The conditional use permit approved in 1998 has lapsed, because Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) has failed to submit a complete application for architectural review approval of the required sound walls, although it has been over a year since the City Council agreed to pay up to $50,000 for one half of the cost to construct Page 2 of 6 the sound walls, and it has been eight months since CSI received a Notice of Incomplete Application for the architectural review approval application it submitted on March 28, 2000. The city staff report, CMR:458:00, at Page 2 of 3, states that CSI proposed a plan that did not comply with the approved conditional use permit, because "CSI anticipated that obtaining ARB approval and the building permit could take considerable time, which would further delay improvement, maintenance and use of the existing courts." CSI told you that they were concerned that the time required to receive approvals from other agencies, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District, was the reason they anticipated delay in use of the tennis courts. There is no evidence that CSI’s project has been delayed by the action of other agencies, and there is no evidence that CSI has eyed filed completed .applications with any of these agencies. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that CSI is solely responsible for the fact that they have not obtained architectura! review approval, because they have failed to submit a complete application, and because the application they did submit on March 28, 2000, is null and void, due the fact that it has been six months since they were informed on Apri! 25, .2000, that their application was deemed incomplete. On January 18, 2000, when the City Council continued discussion of CSI’s proposed amendment to the Option Agreement, there was no language in the Motion to Continue that gave a reason for the continuance, such as "continued pending clarification of the proposed plan". CSI submitted its architectural review application after the City Council refused to act on CSI’s proposed amendment to the Option Agreement on January 18, 2000. Therefore, it is clear that CSI was not relying on the City Council’s continuance of the agenda item about CSI’s proposed amendment as a reason to believe that the Council would approve a proposal that would permit CSI to operate a tennis facility prior to meeting al! the conditions of the conditional use permit the Council approved on October 13, 1998. RESPONSIBILITY EORLAPSED USE PEP4~IT I believe that the reason CSI has let its conditional use permit lapse, and has tried to operate under its previous permit that has also expired, is the reason City Attorney Ariel Ca!onne stated at the City Council meeting of January 18, 2000, "CSI was confronted with what it felt ws an unacceptable business risk when the Page 3 of 6 litigation was complete." CSI is a business that earned nearly $60,000 in the year ending April 30, 2000, on revenues of almost $720,000, and increased its cash assets over 50% to more than $320,000. CSI’s response to the Request for Proposals for a tennis facility- was to propose noncompetitive tennis classes for children based on CSI’s successfu! business model of noncompetitive ice skating classes for children. CSI’s tennis proposal was never a viable business strategy, because until recently CSI operated the only permanent outdoor ice skating rink west of the Sierras, while the children who come from a wide geographica! area to learn to ice skate at CSI’s facility have many alternatives for tennis instruction closer to home. The City Council asked CSI to include the needs of the Palo Alto Tennis Club (-PATC) in CSI’s proposal. A facility designed for PATC that would be funded by PATC payments to CSI may have been a viable business proposal, but PATC needs five tennis courts for tournaments, if the courts are not !ightedi and a lawsuit settlement agreement prohibits lighted courts and a fifth court. PATC has decided to pursue other options for its needs, and CSI has been trying to force the City Counci! into the position of either al!owing CSI to operate in violation of the settlement agreement and the city zoning code, or being blamed for CSI’s letting its conditiona! use permit lapse. PROJECT HISTORY In November 1985 the voters adopted a proposal from the City Council to exchange land to for the purpose of acquiring a site that contained the Winterlodge ice skating facility plus a former swim and tennis club. The City Council minutes of May 29, 1985, at pages 5827 and 5828 record that the Council deleted any reference to the swim and tennis club, and refused to limit the site to public uses, and instead adopted the broadest language possible for the portion of the site that was not used for ice skating: "To acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for community ice skating and other appropriate uses." Council Member Sutorius, the maker of the motion, said "Mr. Mock identified one of the motivations for the language of the proposed ordinance that the property was available for adequate planning and ultimate uses should not be frozen by the initiative Page 4 of 6 process. For example, at some time, there might well be a mixed use involving ice skating and affordable housing for seniors." (City Council minutes, May 29, 1985, page 5827.) When staff proposed~in April 1993 that the City Council issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for recreational use of the remainder of the site, Council Member Cobb, an advocate of tennis use on the site, was the only member of the 1993 Council who had been on the Council in 1985. The other eight members of the Council acted without the benefit of the institutional memory that should have informed them that the 1985 action did not limit the future use of the site to tennis. In 1994, when the Council considered the only response to the RFP from CSI, it was informed by the public about the 1985 action, and Council Members said that they should have issued a different RFP, but decided that since CSI had responded to the RFP in good faith, the Council should try to approve some kind of tennis proposal, despite staff’s recommendation that the CSI response to the RFP did not meet the objectives of the RFP. Here is what staff said at that time from the minutes of the June 6, 1994, City Council meeting: Senior Financia! Analyst Janet Freeland, said the proposals had been submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis facility located at 3005 Middlefield Road, along with the Proposal Committee’s evaluation of the proposals. Staff recommended Council reject the proposals submitted in response to the RFP and direct staff to evaluate an alternate use and disposition. Staff also recommended Council approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to provide funds to remove the swimming pool at the site. On April 26, 1993, Council had approved an RFP for an option to lease the property and had directed staffto solicit proposals to obtain neighborhood input prior to returning to Council with a recommendation. The intent of the RFP was to solicit proposals for a long-term lease for the development and operation of a recreational facility with public benefit at no cost to the City. A staff committee evaluated the proposals based on the criteria included in the RFP and had solicited neighborhood input. The staff report (CMR:293:94) included comments from neighbors on the proposals and the staff committee’s evaluation and i:ecommendation that Council reject both proposals. The committee concluded that, although both proposals had many strengths and benefits, neither proposal re.sponded fully to the intent of the RFP nor sufficiently fulfilled the public need to justify its cost to the City or its impact to the neighbors. Since the RFP had not resulted in proposals which met the intent, the recommendation was that Council direct staff to reevaluate the site for other uses and provide staff with the criteria or parameters for alternate uses. In addition, because of the deteriorated condition of the existing pool and because no proposals had been received which included its use, staff recommended approval of a BAO in the amount of $30,000 for the removal of the existing pool on the site. CSI and its supporters have tried to substitute the 1993 and 1994 actions of the Council for the 1985 actions of the Council and the voters, and have tried to claim that what the Council. did in 1993 and 1994 tells you what the Council did in 1985, which is not true. THE CURRENT STAFF REPORT (CMR:458:0) The staff report states that adoption of the proposed .amendment to Page 5 of 6 the Option Agreement would mean that "Failure to obtain the required city approvals and complete the construction of the sound wall and any other improvements required for the use will result in termination of the lease." The staff report omits the fact that approval of the staff’s recommendation means that the all of the mitigations attached to the approval of the new conditional use permit will never be implemented. The staff report states that the City Manager on September!l, 2000, approved an amendment to the Option Agreement to extend the option term to December 31, 2000. The proposed amendment to the Option Agreement states that Amendment No. 3 to the Option Agreement extended the option term to 180 days after the final disposition of three lawsuits that challenged the Council’s action, but does not say who approved that amendment. You need to find out from the City Attorney the date of the final disposition of the three lawsuits to be able to calculate the effective option termination date set by Amendment No. 3, so that you can determine if it is earlier or later than the date in Amendment No. 5. This controversial issue does not belong on the Consent Calendar. This proposed reversal of the conditions for a new use permit adopted by the Council October 13, 1998, should be rejected. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock Page 6 of 6 Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 December 18, 2000 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 DECEMBER 18, 2000, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM # 9 COMMUNITY SKATING, INC. TENNIS FACILITY Dear City Council: I have read copies of e-mail correspondence that attempt to frame the decision before you as whether or not a sound wall will be constructed if you allow the old conditional use permit to be used, instead of requiring the new conditional use permit to be used. The parties to the settlement in the Middlefield Road Homeowners Association lawsuit are the only people who have agreed that Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) may exercise all rights and obligations under the old conditional use permit for a tennis facility. No other interested person is bound by that settlement agreement, and any such interested person may challenge CSI’s operation of a tennis facility under the old permit on the grounds that (i) the permit has expired due to its not being used continuously for over a year and (2)the negative declaration for that permit is no longer valid [California Environmental Quality Act regulation 15062(a) (2)].. In my December 17, 2000, e-mail letter to you I said that "The effective date of [the new] conditional use permit was the date that the last of the three lawsuits challenging the approval was either settled or dismissed, which was no later than August 1999", because I reca!led that the City Attorney distributed a memorandum in August 1999 in which he said that each of the three lawsuits had been either settled or dismissed. I have now had an opportunity to review the court records and I conclude that: i. The court granted a judgment on behalf of the City of Palo Alto in the Wei Wang lawsuit on June 23, 1999. 2. The court granted a judgment on behalf of the City of Palo Alto in the Natalie Fisher lawsuit on August i0, 1999, that was reaffirmed on October 25, 1999. Page 1 of 3 3. The court dismissed after settlement the Middlefield Road Homeowners Association lawsuit on October 12, 1999. If Amendment No. 3 to the Option Agreement extended the option term to 180 days after the final disposition of those three lawsuits, then the option term would appear to have been extended until April 2001. On September II, 2000, Amendment No. 5 "extended" the option term to December 31, 2000, which is before the apparent extension date set by Amendment No. 3. On September 12, 2000, staff sent a letter to Linda Jensen of CSI setting forth the information required to proceed with building a sound wall without satisfying the other requirements of the conditiona! use permit the City Council approved on October 13, 19998, and that wasthe subject of the three lawsuits. Today is the last day you can act on CSI’s request to operate under the old use permit prior to the Option Agreement terminating, if the termination date in Amendment No. 5 supersedes the apparent later termination date in Amendment No. 3 to the Option Agreement. Essentially, CSI wants to be able to operate a tennis facility on four tennis courts with. lights, and without any of the mitigations in the new conditiona! use permit, that would permit the facility being used for tournaments by the Palo Alto Tennis Club which, in my opinion, continues to be the objective of CSI’s proposal. You need answers to the following questions: Has the conditional use permit you approved on October 13, 1998, expired? If so, when did it expire? If not, when will it expire? What was the expiration date of the Option Agreement after the adoption of Amendment No. 3? If Amendment No. 5 sets an earlier termination date than~Amendment No. 3, did CSI agree.to that termination date, and if so, why did they agree? If the December 31, 2000, termination date was set on September II, 2000, why are you being faced with a decision about this matter at your last meeting before the expiration of the Option Agreement? Attached to this letter are the following: i. First three pages of CSI’s Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax. 2.Excerpts, City Council minutes, 5/29/85, pages 5827 and 5828. Page 2 of 3 3. September 12, 2000, letter to Linda Jensen from Rachel Adcox. 4. April 25, 2000, letter to Linda Jensen from Rachel Adcox. Sincerely, Herb Borock Page 3 of 3 Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To: Subject: WPaloAIto@aol.com Monday, May 21, 2001 6:45 AM Rachel_Adcox@city.palo-alto.ca. us; Ed_Gawf@city.palo-alto.ca.us From Winter Lodge’s neighbor ... Wei Wang Where does the money go? Back in 1989 when the Winter Lodge site was first rezoned to public facility, it was the first step the city took to give them permission to not follow any code. The reason is because the Winter Lodge site is a strictly customer-only business site. Asking such a site to follow code that is only suitable for public property is the same as letting it to not follow any code because they simply don’t have the right set up. For example, in order to apply public property noise limit on this commercial site, city officials have to hide the true intent of the noise ordinance which isto regulate how much noise the noise source can produce and came up with their interpretation and that is that the noise ordinance regulates noise depending on who complains about it. So Winter Lodge’s noise went up and down depending on if there is any complaint and if so, where the complainer locates. Our noise enforcement officials - police often refused to respond to Winter Lodge’s noise complaint because they know if they cannot regulate how much noise can be produced by the noise source, each trip is just a waste of tax payer’s money. Is it possible for our city officials to simply provide the Winter Lodge with proper code so they can follow? How about asking them to follow the commercial noise limit as recommended by all three acoustic engineers involved in noise analysis for this site? It is funny that even their own acoustic engineer hired by Winter Lodge made such recommendation (proof can be found on my web site: paloaltosoundwall.net under the category of ’document’)? The Winter Lodge has been successful in shielding its noise from the Middlefield Rd. side, why can’t they spend some money to do the same for other sides? And, to make their Zamboni machine comply with the commercial noise limit, Winter Lodge may have to spend some money on a newer model or even an electric powered one. This 10-foot tall sound wall is evidence that our city officials saved the Winter Lodge from spending money on getting an Environmental Impact Report. So, instead, our taxpayers’ money is used for a negative dec that results in this wall and then our tax payer’s money was approved to build it (again, document can be found on my web site). In addition to that, the Winter Lodge does not want the wall to be close to their customers so they forced this wal! on neighbors’ property lines and our city officials went along with it. The Winter Lodge has a good amount of cash flow. Since none of their money is used to comply with code and they are supposed to be a nonprofit organization, where does the money go? After thousands of tax payer’s money wasted on year after year of public hearings, professional testimonies and law suits, is now the time to ask them to spend some money to fix this mass? Wei Wang 3054 Price Ct. 494-0700 wpaloalto@aol.com paloaltosoundwall.net Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To: Subject: WPaloAIto@aol.com Friday, May 18, 2001 11:25 AM rachel_adcox@city.palo-alto.ca.us How do you solve this puzzle? Dear Rachel: I am glad we had a chance to talk. As you said that for police to enforce public property noise limit, all they have to do is measure at the property line. But the noise ordinance regulate how much noise can a source make, it never says anything about how much noise different target can receive. If the noise measurement can only be taken at 25 feet from the property line then when condo neighbors say Winter Lodge violated the limit, Winter Lodge can say they didn’t because to Price Ct. property line, they may not and when Price Ct. neighbors say they did, they can say they didn’t because to the creek side property line, they didn’t and when the creek side neighbors say they did, they can say they didn’t because to Middlefield Rd. property line, they didn’t. That is why CSI is so ruthless because they have the authority from the city to not be bound by any code! Wei To:City Council City Attorney City Planning Department An easy way out of the problems between Winter Lodge and its neighbors Date:May 18, 2001 From:Wei Wang The article on this Wednesday’s Weekly "Outcry over proposed sound wall" quoted from Joe Bellomo, the ARB chair, as saying "We should have seen more outreach to the neighbors. We want to see designs that speak to all of the concerns." is the first time in the history as I can recall that we, Winter Lodge’s neighbors, are considered as equal opponent as our neighbor - CSI. Hearings for Winter Lodge’s tennis project started in 1995. In 1998, I decided to shut myself off from getting involved because I couldn’t understand why simple English words have opposite meanings. For example, during that time, whenever the city council mentioned the words "community", they really meant the "tennis community" and whenever they mentioned the word "public", they really meant "Winter Lodge’s customers". In all accounts, we (Winter Lodge’s neighbors) were not part of the "community" they were considering and we were not part of the "public" they tried to address. Personally, I was accused by both city attorneys (Mr. Mayfield and Mr. Calonne) of "trespassing" and "harassing the customers" when I set my foot on this "public land" zoned "public facility" where Winter Lodge resides. The basic provision for public land zoned public facility is that "everyone has equal access". Obviously, this basic definition of "public owned land and facility" has opposite definition to our law enforcement officials and because of it, police does not know what code to follow because practically, how do they enforce code for public property on a commercial site? And Winter Lodge has the opportunity to invent more and more tricks to play cat and mouse with its neighbors. There is no reason why Winter Lodge’s zoning cannot be determined by its use. Winter Lodge has been operating since 1956 and before 1989, it was not zoned "public facility". We, Price Ct. houses were here since 1952. According to neighbors who live here before 1989, they never had any problems with Winter Lodge because that time, Winter Lodge know exactly what code to follow. We, Price Ct. neighbors would be very happy if that zoning can be restored so our city attorneys, our police know exactly what code Winter Lodge should follow, neighbors know exactly what to expect from Winter Lodge and Winter Lodge know what code they are bound by. All these problems came from excluding us from this "public facility" o~a "public land" can be solved. This will then be the most important milestone for further relationship between Winter Lodge and its neighbors. Wei Wang 3054 Price Ct. Palo Alto 650-494-0700 wpaloalto@aol.com Page 1 of 2 Adcox, Rachel From:Lindley Frahm [lir~dleyfrahm@yahoo.com] Sent:Saturday, May 05, 2001 12:23 PM To:rachel_adcox@city.pa!o-alto.ca.us Subject:Proposed Wall around Winter Lodge NOTE: The following e-mail was sent directly tO the board members on 04/30/2001. I was asked to forward it to this address for your records.. To: job@bellomoarchitects.com, ken@kornberg.com, drew@drewmaran.com, llippert@compuserve.com, j_warqiteq_@.aol.com Dear members of the Palo Alto ARB, I am writing you in advance of the meeting on Thursday, May 3rd, 2001, where the 10 foot high noise barrier to surround the Site of the Winter Lodge is being discussed. I want to thank you in advance for reading and weighing the concerns I express below as a neighbor who lives close to that site. My family has lived in our home on Wellsbury Way - directly across Middlefield from Winter Lodge - for 10 years. We love the Midtown area and were disappointed to learn of the plan to build the 10 foot. Even worse, a cement wall that is likely to be an unattractive addition to our lovely community. As nearby residents, I admit that there are events from time to time at Winter Lodge where we notice lots of people and cars, but isn’t that a reflection of an active and vibrant community? In only rare cases has the noise level been a problem from our side of the street, but the many cars are admittedly a bit annoying. So, should we ask the city to help fund additional parking places for these events so that our cars can easily be parked in front of our house where we usually do? Surely not!! On the contrary, as long as no one parks illegally, or that the noise level remains within the legal decibel limits, we would hope that current ordinances are adequate to ’encourage’ the lodge and it’s customers to respect the law. But either way, these disturbances are rare and quickly forgotten in a few hours or days. On the other hand, a 10 foot tall wall is permanent, and would be a constant physical eye- sore. As an avid walker, I am unable to think of anywhere in the Midtown area or other parts of Palo Alto where such tall walls exist. The only exception are those extremely tall 5/7/01 Page 2 of 2 cement brick walls next to 101. But these are certainly a necessity given the constant roar of traffic. In contrast, the fences between the YMCA and neighboring homes aren’t too tall, and the fences around such high-use areas as Cubberly Center, Mitchell Park and most local schools are often 4 to 6 feet high chain-linked fences! So why is such a tall barrier needed at this site? I personally don’t think it is. I suspect that either someone is overreacting OR perhaps Winter Lodge has not been adequately monitoring their sound level. If it is the former, then we must encourage acceptance. If it is the later, then we must make sure that Winter Lodge acts more responsibly. This may even include building better sound barriers directly around the lodge itself. BUT NOT a 10 foot barrier that all neighbors have to live with for the next 20-30 years!! I’ve probably said too much, but wanted to thank you in advance for considering these points as you come to your final decision later this month. If it would help for me to attend the meeting on Thursday and express these views publically, please let me know and I will be there. Sincerely, Lindley Frahm 664 Wellsbury Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650)813-9417 (Home phone) (650)522-5570 (Work phone) lindleyfrahm@yahoo.com Do You Yahoo!? Y ~ahoo! Auctions - Click and bid on cool stufflike Dave Matthews B..~d Ti_c_!~_e_ts & more! 5/7/01 City Council Planning Department City of Palo Alto June 13, 2001 " JUN 1 3 ~ of Planni According to Section 1 of Amendment #6 of the Option to Lease Agreement between the city and CSI (Optionee and also the current Lessee): "OPTIONEE shall have a conditional use permit for the proposed development" (This document can be found at: http:/[paloaltosoundwall.net/sub/amend6.html). This document states: "CSI needs to have a conditional use permit before this multi- million dollar lease can be given to them." This was a!so the issue of the public hearings between 1995 and 1998 and three law suits from neighboring residents. Because of the law suits, the 1998 use permit was never issued. And, no evidence suggests that CSI had the existing use permit before the lease was given to them because the existing use permit goes with the land. There are two sets of questions we would like to ask, the first set is about the lease: Does the lease comply with its Option to Lease Agreement which requires the Optionee to have a use permit before the lease can be given? If yes, what use permit did CSI have before the lease was given to them? If the answer is that CSI had the existing use permit, then "how did it happen?" According to the Building Optical Disc System (BODS) at the Development Center across the street from City Hall, the existing (1977) use permit only covers the 3 new tennis courts adjacent to the parking lot. The rest of the site is covered in the 1968 use permit. The entire area coverd in the 1968 use permit was in disrepair and were padlocked continuously for the last five years. According to Municipal Code 18.90.080(d), the 1968 use permit should have been null and void due to not being used for over a year. It appears that there is no valid use permit for the entire site of the lease. The second set is about the proposed soundwall: Is noise the real issue for this wall? If yes, then:"where does this wall come from?" The City sets Winter Lodge’s noise limit at 25 feet into neighbor’s property, can anyone enter neighbor’s property at will to make noise measurement there? If yes, which neighbor’s property should be used? Can this be considered trespassing since Winter Lodge is suing its neighbors for trespassing? If no, how can Winter Lodge or police monitor Winter Lodge’s noise on a regular basis because we were told by the police that when the noise violation occurs, it is really too late to complain? We/Wang 3054 Price Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94303 494-0700 wpaloalt~aol.com paloaltosoundwall.net