Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-06 City Council (7)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: AUGUST 6, 2001 CMR:333:01 REQUEST BY COMMUNITY SKATING INC., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, FOR FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A TEN FOOT HIGH SOUND WALL ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES AT THE REAR OF THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD. ZONE DISTRICT: PF, PUBLIC FACILITIES. FILE NUMBER: 00-ARB-43. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council affirm its June 25, 2001 approval of the construction of a ten foot high sound wall along the north and west property lines at 3009 Middlefield Road and modify the conditions of project approval to include the following: The sound wall along the west (Matadero Creek) side property line shall be extended an additional 110 feet in a straight line toward Middlefield Road, rather than wrap around the south side of the tennis court closest to Middlefield Road; The required sound wall on the north (Price Court) side of the property shall be ten feet high and located along the north property line; and The required 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. BACKGROUND On June 25, 2001, the City Council unanimously approved an application by Community Skating Inc. to construct a sound wall along the north, east, and west property lines at 3009 Middlefield Road. The approval was subject to the conditions contained in Attachment A to the June 25, 2001 City Manager’s Report. As a part of the motion to approve the project, the Council also gave the following direction: CMR:333:01 Page 1 of 5 The sound wall along the western property line (adjacent to Matadero Creek) shall be 10 feet high; Explore reducing th~ wall to eight feet high on the north (Price Court) side. However, the final height shall be sufficient to reduce the noise impacts to an acceptable level, as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; Consider a wall material that is more residential in character, darker in color, and of a higher texture; Consider setting the wall two feet back from the north property line if it does not impact noise reduction measures or implementation of the project conditions; Vines shall be grown on the City side of the sound wall that will grow up and over the wall; The sound wall along the west side of the property shall wrap around the south side of the tennis court closest to Middlefield Road; and 7.No wall shall be constructed on the east (condominium) side of the property. The City Council directed staff to look into the feasibility of items 2, 3, and 4 and return to the Council with an analysis of those issues. Staff is also recommending that the Council accept the proposed revision to item 6 to extend the wall toward Middlefield Road rather than wrap around the comer of the court. DISCUSSION The following is the issues analysis that was requested by the City Council, organized by topic: Explore reducing the wall to eight feet high on the north (Price Court) side. However, the final height shall be sufficient to reduce the noise impacts to an acceptable level, as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff recommends that the Council approve the 10 foot sound wall height on the north (Price Court) side of the property. The recommended 10 foot sound wall height was originally arrived at through the analysis of eleven separate acoustical studies performed by three different acoustical engineers. Subsequent to the June 25, 2001 Council meeting, staff met again with the City’s acoustical consultant to reexamine the necessity of a ten foot wall. The consultant reaffirmed his determination that in order to reduce the tennis noise to a level that would satisfy the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance CMR:333:01 Page 2 of 5 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the wall would need to be ten feet high. In addition, because the height of the wall is necessitated by the anticipated height of the noise source (in this case, racket/tennis ball contact during a serve), the wall would have to be ten feet high regardless of whether it was moved back any distance from the north property line. ¯Consider a wall material that is more residential in character, darker in color, and of a higher texture. Staff is recommending that the color, pattern, and material of the sound wall proposed at the June 25, 2001 Council meeting be approved. Both staff and the project’s landscape architect have explored the possibilities for alternate wall materials. The wall is proposed to be constructed using pre-fabricated integral color concrete panels and drilled pier construction. This type of construction was chosen to minimize the disturbance of existing tree roots. It was suggested to staff that the sound wall at the YMCA on Ross Road be considered as a model for the proposed wall. The YMCA wall is constructed of masonry block, which affords a very different look and texture. However, a masonry block wall requires a continuous foundation that could substantially impact tree roots. It was also suggested at the Council meeting that the proposed wall color may be too bright. However, staff believes that darkening the wall will only exacerbate its shadowing of adjacent properties. To soften the view of the wall from neighboring properties, vines will be planted on the City side of the wall that will climb up and over the other side of the structure. Neighbors with yards adjacent to the wall may also plant climbing vines or other landscaping along the wall. Neighbors may also choose to preserve their existing fencing and landscaping to further screen the wall. ¯Consider setting the wall two feet back from the north property line if it does not impact noise reduction measures or implementation of the proiect conditions. The Council motion included the request to consider setting the proposed north wall two feet back from the property line. This request was primarily driven by the desire to reduce the visual impact of the sound wall on neighboring properties and preserve as many trees as possible. Staff recommends that the wall be approved in its originally proposed location along the north side property line. The applicants have worked closely with the City Planning Arborist to minimize the number of trees that would need to be removed to accommodate the sound wall. The CMR:333:01 Page 3 of 5 most significant of the tree removals along the north side of the property would have to occur regardless of the wall position because many the trees are in poor condition. In order to fully protect the roots of the trees that would remain on the City side of the wall, the wall would have to be set back at least five feet from the northern property line. While setting the wall back from the northern property line would not result in a noise impact, it is contrary to the existing terms of the lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating Inc. Specifically, the lease language states that the development of the premises must include "a 10-foot high air-tight acoustical sound wall along the northerly and westerly property lines of the PREMISES". Further, the area created between the sound wall and the neighboring properties would not be visible from City or public property, creating the potential for misuse. The sound wall along the west side of the property_ shall wrap around the south side of the tennis court closest to Middlefield Road. At the June 25, 2001 Council meeting, staff recommended that the sound wall on the west (Matadero Creek) side of the property either extend further along the property line towards Middlefield Road or wrap around the end of the court closest to Middlefield Road. This recommendation was based on information received from the City’s acoustical engineer and the need to minimize flanking noise. Staff recommends that the Council allow the wall to extend an additional 110 feet toward Middlefield Road rather than wrap around the end of the southernmost tennis court. Staff has conferred with the City’s acoustical consultant and confirmed that the straight wall would result in a noise reduction level equal to that of a wrapped wall. Community Skating Inc. has submitted a letter to the Director of Planning opposing any extension or wrapping of the west side sound wall (its letter is appended to this report as Attachment C). However, staff has confirmed with the City’s acoustical consultant that either the wall extension or wrap would be necessary to fully mitigate the noise associated with the tennis courts. Given this necessity, staff believes that the wall extension would be the least visually and programmatically intrusive of the two alternatives. 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. CMR:333:01 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS A. Conditions of project approval B. Photograph of "crown wall" design C. Letter from Jack Morton dated July 20, 2001 Rachel Adcox, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 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 PI., 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, 2182 St. Francis Dr., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Lindley Frahm, 664 Wellsbury Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Martin Wetterhorn, 3077 Middlefield Rd. #204, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:333:01 Page 5 of 5 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. 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. The sound wall along the west property line shall be extended 110 feet further to the south than is depicted on the plans dated October 5, 2000. 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, ~os 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 3009 Middlefield Road Page 1 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. ¯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). ¯Vines shall be planted on the City side of the north and west walls that will grow over the top of the wall and soften the appearance of the wall from adjacent properties. 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 Buildin~ Permit Submittal 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. Identify and show all easements on the property on the building permit plan submittal. Durin~ 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 03MPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction 3009 Middlefield Road Page 2 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. S:\plan\pladiv\cmr\winterlodge COAs.doc 3009 Middlefield Road Page 3 Attachment B Winter Lodge 3009 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California 94306 Attachment C (650) 493-4566 July 20, 2001 G. Edward Gawf Director of Planning and Community Environment City Hall, 5A 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: Sound Wall for former Chuck Thompson Tennis Club Dear Ed: At the June 25, 2001 Palo Alto City Council Meeting. the Council approved Community Skating Inc.’s sound wall permit with five tentative conditions and at the same time requested the Planning Staff to review those conditions for feasibility and legality. Council asked that the item by returned for final Council approval before the August adjournment. The item has been placed on the Consent Calendar for the August 6th Council meeting. Community Skating. Inc. ("CSI") went into the June 25~h Council meeting in full support of the published Staff Report only to be surprised by the Planning Staff’s last minute proposal to wrap the wall along the Middlefield Road side of the courts. After some discussion about what was actually being voted on, the motion by council member L~le was approved to explore the feasibility of: (1) constructing a 10-foot wall on the Ellsworth side and an 8-foot wall on the Price Court side, (2) selecting a more residential looking material for the ,,vail, (3) moving the wall in from the property line, (4) landscaping the wall on both sides, and (5) wrapping the wal! around the tennis courts. Wall Height CSI is sympathetic to the Price Court neighbors’ objection to a 10-foot ‘‘vail. CSI would consider the neighbors’ preference for a lower wall on the Price Court side, if the mitigation of sound is not compromised, and if all the neighbors will agree in a m-itten document not to complain about noise or to bring future litigation because the wall is less than 10 feet. Mr. G. Edward Gawf July 20, 2001 Page 2 Wall Material With input from the Planning Staff, CSI has selected a material for the wall which does have a residential feel, and we have added design features to make the wall more decorative. We hope that the Planning Staff will continue to support the crown wall pattern recommended in the June 25, 2001 Staff Report. Location of Wall CSI strongly opposes moving the wall from the property line. To do so would create a liability for both the City and CSI and would create a long. narrow inaccessible area that would be impossible to maintain and secure. Landscaping There is no practical way of maintaining landscaping on the neighbors’ side of the ~vall. CSI would have to obtain permission from each neighbor to go onto his or her property to plant and maintain the landscaping which would be a logistical nightmare. CSI is not willing to undertake this added burden and hopes that the Planning Staff and the Council see that such a condition would be impossible to implement. Wall Extension The wall extension proposal is an after-the-fact change to the wall concept and to the understanding upon which CSI entered into a lease with the City. The proposal to extend the wall along the western edge of the site or wrap the wall around the now open tennis courts was initiated by a single neighbor on Ellsworth whose property is not located near the proposed extension area. CSI is very concerned that any wall extension will have significant detrimental effects to the site and will interfere with the community’s enjoyment of the tennis facility. Furthermore, CSI has not seen any evidence that the wall extension will provide sufficient additional sound mitigation to merit the detrimental effects it will impose. Our legal counsel is reviewing the legality of the proposed wall extension, but regardless of these findings, CSI would like the Planning Staff to balance the amount of sound mitigation derived from the wall extension against the following detrimenta! effects the wall extension creates for the site: 1) the loss of open space feel of the site; 2) the health and safety issues; and 3) the threat to the tree health. To begin with, if the wall is wrapped around to extend down the tennis court parallel to Middlefield it will entomb that tennis court, raise the temperature and block the line of Mr. G. Edward Gawf July 20, 2001 Page 3 sight from the Winter Lodge and Middlefield Road. Such an extension will greatly detract from the open space feeling of the site and will pose a health and safety risk by creating a space on the site which is not visible from the Winter Lodge main office or Middlefield Road. Alternately, if the wall is extended along the canal on the EllswOrth side there are several problems. Most importantly, there are two Deodara Cedar trees which exceed thirty feet in height that will be affected by the wall. Because the wall is a south facing wall, it will block airflow and raise the temperature next to the trees thereby causing harm which could lead to the death of the trees. In addition, it will be difficult for Community Skating to landscape the wall as it extends along the existing parking lot. CSI has made every effort to consider the neighbors’ conflicting concerns. In determining the feasibility of the Council’s proposed changes to the wall. we urge the Planning Staff to take into consideration the full impact that the additional concrete wall will have on the site which the youth and families of our community are waiting to use. It is time to stop having this project be driven by one or two outspoken neighbors and consider the needs and desires of the larger community. We will be happy to meet with the Planning Staff to further discuss our concerns before the Staff Report becomes final. Sincerely, Morton President, Community Skating Board John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager Rachel Adcox, Senior Planner Frank Benest, City Manager Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Palo Alto City Council Members Audrey Sullivan Jacob, Esq.