HomeMy WebLinkAbout0293.094· " ~-'
May 26, 1994
HONORABLE ~rT¥ COUNCIL
Polo Alto, California
Members of tho CQuncl1:
R HIlQRT ItLmU)!-X
This report trllns~it6 the propostlla S\lb~itted in response to the
Request for Proposal (RFP) foL' th~ for ~or Chuck 'I'hompaon s~."im and
tennis fecility located at J005 Middlofiold Road; transmits the
Proposal Committee's (C¢amitteo) evaluation of the proposalBj and
recommends t'nat Council reject thQ propos&la, suhmitted in response
to the RFP and direct staff to ev ... luate Ute: site for alternate \lse
and disposition.. staff alao recoucnda th.,t Council approve the
liIttached Budget Anendllent Ordinance (SAO) to provlde funds to
remove the owi'm:minq pool at the olto.
In Ncvembe.. 1985, the citizens of PolQ Alto approved ballot
measures authorizinq the City to 9~change publl0 land for a 3.74-
acre site on Hid(llefleld Ro~d. The Kid~lefield Road site included
an outdoor icC:! skating rink, cOMonly kno'Wl'I as the: Winter Lodge; a
swimming pool, a small gYM and five ten~iB courts, commonly kno~n
as the formor ChUCK Thol\pson s"'i,, and tennIs center site; and a
vacant lot at the front of the Site, forftorly occupied by,a Shell
Oil gas &ttltion (8,.)8 J;.ttachment 1\). 'The land fix-change 'Was
completed in september 1986, and included' a condition th"t Shell
Oil company remove gasoline residue from the soil and water. On
June 19, 1989, the Council approved a change of the Co~prehensive
Land Use desig-nation fro", Kuttiple F.lOUy Residential to Major
Institution/Special Facilities, and the change of the 20nin9 from
RM-1S (Low Density Multiplo FalOily Residential) to PF (Public
Facilities}. In July of 1939, tha Council approved a t""snty-year
lease of the Winter Lodge portion of the site to community Skating,
Inc. (CSI). The remainder of the site (for~or Chuck Thompson site)
CMR:293:94
j
i
i
1 l '.
I·
I
[
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
o o
'Was leased t,o the .Palo Alto 'iounq Ken's Christiau Association
(YM.CA) on a one-year lease, pending a decision by tho YHCA on how
the site would fit into its overall plon tor YMCA facilities in
Palo Alto. In September 1~90, the ¥HCA notified the City that it
would be concentrating ita efforts on its Rosa Road site anc.l
terminated the lease. On October 11, 1990, the council directed
staff to prepare an RPP for the long-term leaue of the B~im ~"d
tennis court facility and return to council tor approva,l for tho
iU'P. Following completion of the expansion ot the Winter Lodgo and
cleanup of the soil cont.mination on the portion of the site
formerly occupied by the Shell gas station, ota!! returned to
Council with the RFP on April 26, 1993. At that time, Councll
approved the RFP and directed staff to solicit proposals and to
obtain neighborhood input prior t<> returning to CouncUwith a
recommendation on tho proposals.
SQLICI'I'l\UQII PROC1U!l!
In lat~ April 1993, RFP information flyers were Gent to interested
persons and organizations, and the RFP was advertised in the E,dlQ
Alto Weekly and the San JQ~H§~~. In response to this
advertisinq, approxilllately 25 proposal packages 'Were mailed or
given ,to interested parties.
Proposals were due J~ly 20, 1993, and on that date, tWQ submltt~18
were received:
1) The Palo Alto Tennie ClIlb (PATC) hos responded to the RFP hy
submitting a recommendation for the future use of the site
rather than a formal proposal. The PATe I,mdo)."stands the
intent of the RFP was to lease the property to an operator who
will upgrade and operate the property as a tennis and/or
swimming facility. The PATe cannot fUnction AS a cODmercial
operator, but it maintains a strong interest in tha
development of, local tennis faCilities, and, there foro hAS
sub~itted a reco1lUl'l9r1dation for use of the $lite. PATe
recomm~nds that the City improve and maintain tha site as a
general public tennis facility with a minimum of four courts,
and that the. courts be designated for professional tennis
instruction in addition to general public play.
2) community Skating; Inc. submitted a proposal to leaso the site
for a two-phased recreational project, the Kidtor,m
Recreational Cent.er (MRC). Durinq Phase I, which would be the
first five years of ,the lease period, csr proposes to d6velop
the shared parking on the site and refurbish ~nd operato tha
four existing tennis courts. CSI committed to spend up to
$100,000 tor the capital costs of Ph~se I ot the project and
requests City assistance with maintenance costs. Phase II
CHR'2~3:~4 2
would be construction and operation of an in~tructional
swimlllinq pool, 8; small qyttInasium, III \.!abana and two tennis
courts. CSI propose~ that the city fund the capital coats of
Phase III as' a "recreational facility for its citi2ens, to be
operated by CSI. CSI i. willing to commit to the development
of the tennis facility and shal:ed p~r)Cin9 (Phaee I) regardless
of whether the City would be willing to fund Phase II.
Although the PATC submittal is a recommendation for use and not a
formol proposal, for the •• ke of simplicity, both the PATe
r~commendation and the CSI proposals are referred to hereafter as
"proposals."
The proposals are sUJnmltriztld in Attachll1ent B, which had been
reproduo~d for all packets. Due to their lenqth, complete copies
of the proposals are provided only for council and library packets
(Attachment G). Complete copies of the proposals are available for
review in the Real Property Office at city Hall as well as at all
IJbraries, except Children's.
Proposal Evaluation Committee
As directed by Council, the committee formecl to evaluatn the
pr-Ctposals and make a recommendation to the Co~,"cil was composed of
staff from the Departments of Public Works, community services,
Planning and Finance. The committee's evaluation of proposals
included a review of the written proposals and interviews with the
proposers~ The proposals were evaluated, based upon the criteria
included in the RFP and listed in Attachment C. Although the PA're
submittal is not a fontal proposal, the Cotunittee evaluated its
recommendation in terms of the merits of the recommended use.
lIeighborhood Input
On A.pril 26~ 1993 when Council approved the RFP, it also directed
staff· to obtain noighbochood input prior to bringing the
Committee'S recommendation to Council. 011 November 17, 1993,
notices were sent to all pt'ope:rty owners and tenants within 300
feet of the site, informing them that two proposals had been
received in response to the,RPP and that copies of the proposals
wera available for thair review in the libraries and at City Hall.
The rIot ice invited neighbors to rev law and comment on the
proposals, either in'writing or by telephone, prior to the date of
the committee's interviews with proposers. The nei9hbors'
l .. ~sponses were reviewod by the Com.'1littee prior to its final
CMR:293:94
.'.
, ., ,
3
, :,'
,""'t·
~
I
I
"
I
j
I
'" \ . " ,
" '
"'-"I"~ ".'!i~;",ci;?,<.". : .. >_,......:._ .... __ .~.~ .~ • ...,,,_ . .,. .• _,.,_ "" -~_ •. ;', ., >,,_.",,-~;~!,~.i;
deliberations on the proposals. The notice, a sUlMIliry of th.e
responses and the letters are attached (Attachment 0).
summ~ry of Co~ittGQ'B Evaluation of Proposals
'thG intent of the RFP was to solicit propot;ftls for a long-term
l~aso tor the devolopment and operation of a recreational use with
public benetit, at no cost to the city. The PATC recollUl\endation is
not a proposal to)'; leallo, but a l'Elcommendation that the City
finanoe, develop and operate the tennis courts~ with contributions
Iro. PATe. The cst proposal for an option to lease is two-phased,
vith both.phases involvlnq city exponditures and, in the case ot
Pnase II, -6!.qniticant city e)(}Jendlture. In terns of required cost
to the city and the fact that one is not a formal proposal, neither
the PAte recommendation nor the CSI proposal fully respond to the
intent of tho RFP. The Committee's evaluation of the proposals
included consideration of the criteria set ~ut in the RFP; however,
due to the unus'l,al nature of the proposals and their cost to the
City, tha. COMitt-ee's evaluation emphasized a cost-benefit approach
'whlqh considered whether the public benefit of the proposed use
juetified its cost to the City.
A detailed discuGsion of tha Committee's evaluation of the PATC
recol!U!lendation and the CSI proposal is inchuJed in Attachment E.
In B\w.."'aary, the COmJlllttee concluded that although both PATe's
recommendation and CSI1s proposal had many strengths and benefits,
nelthor fulfilled a public need great enough to justify its costs
to the City. The committee 'Was most appreciative of PATe's
eaporience and knowledge, its long-term community involvement in,
lind contributions to, tennis in palo Alto, and its interest and
contribution in making the recommendation. The strengths of the
reconmended use include its consistency with City goals, as set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Zonillq ordinance, and its
potential for relatively minor impacts on traffic, parking and the
n6ighbors. Although there WO\lld be benefits to the addition of
these tour to se'.,en courts to the City's inventory, staff believes
there is not 8 de~onBtrated public need for these midtown courts
8utt1cient. to justify the cost to the City. The Co"",,itte. would
recommend that it the City chose', ,to spend additional money on
tennis, it would be bettor spent on addinq, resurfacing or lighting
tennis courts at other sites,
"I'ho CSI propcaal 'IN'as strong in terms of CSI's experience and
knowledge of leaSing, improving and operatin9 a successful
recreational facility which appeals to farrlilies and emphasizes
skill development. CSI has a proven track record of service to the
cOMunity and has demonstrated how a public recreatJon facility can
be operated by a hiqhly motivated volunteer group. Other strengths
inolude the proposal's consistency with City goals as set forth in
the COllllprchansive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and I in the case of
the Phase I proposal, its relatively minor impacts on traffic,
CHR,293,94 4
,", ., ,
./-:.
'/
,',. ,
.' tl
parking .n~ neighbors. Hovever, .ltho~gh there vould be public
benefits fro~ tho addition or the proposod recreational center in
the city, there Is not a de~on.tr.ted public need for this type of
faoility to justify the COBts to tho City or it. potential impactB
on tho neighbors.
In genera.1.~ thO. COMit;te:o concluded that there was not a hlqh
enou9h demand or publio need tot' the proposed recreational servicea
to justil'y th.ir coat to the city; that tho only proposed usa lihieh.
"auld not o19nitlcontly bpact. tho neighborB (uBe of tho four
existing court_) I{ould not be ~h$ boot use of this one and a half
acre CUy-owned Bitel and that neither the CSI propoBal nor the
PATe reco:uendatt,on should be rocQMended to CQ~.mcil. for Acceptance
or i.pIe.entatlon.
Tile intft1lnt of the RFP was to colleit proposl\ls for a long-terr.,
le~8o of the site: fot' dov.(llop~~fcnt and oporatioll of a recreational
facility at no CQut to the city. Tho RYP has toiled to result in
proposals ifhich l:loot this intent. Furthet", the Pl<oposals received
would 8uom to indicate tllat , although sOrJa vary worthwhile
recreatlon~l uses could be ~9de of tho aite, it is not economically
feaalble to do 80 without significant financial assistance from the
City. Thorofore, ~tatf recoR~ondB that tho site should be
rC3:av-alu.r.ted and: considerod for usee oth~r than a B'W'im/tennis
faoilit.y, and ,requtlsts that council provido staff with criteria or
par4Reters on alternate UBes.
The pool on the Bite has not beon used slnco the Chuck Thompson
facUity Olosed In 1984, ond it L. In 0 deteriorated condition. In
additlon, vhe" th" gymnasium on tho site " •• demolished in 1990 due
to earthquake danag6 t tho pool equipment which was housed in the
gym w~s re~oved. stafr had ~ot prQviously recommended the removal
of the pool because I'otontsal proposere had irodicated it mi9ht be
:worth rehabilitating, (lspecially becAuse its 'Shape mak.es it an
excellent pool for swiamlng instruction. Since the RfP has failed
to result In proposals .. hlch illclude us. of tho existing pool,
staff reCOD'lZenciB that, due to its deteriora.ted condition and
potential liability, it should be removed and filled. The
estimatod cost to re::ove the po-{)l lind decking and to fill and
compoct the till i. $)0,000.
Attached is 0 BAO estobllshing a Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
in the a.ount of $30,000 to provide fundo for removal of the pool
on tho forner Chuck Thompson Swi~ and Tonnis center site
(Attachment 1').
ClIR'29]'94 5
o
INUBO!!)(1JiT.\L IMPACT lt8BBBBMIHT
DuG. to the conceptual nature ot. the CSI proposal, an Envlron:r.:ontal
lJOpactAsse •• llent (EIA) .... may be required undor thll Cditorni"
Environmental Quality Act (CEQ"), h'B not be.n prepared. It Council
should indicate its proforonce tot' this proposal concept. the
propos.r will be asked toprovid~ tho no" ••• ory addition ... l spociric
in~ormation, and staff will return to counoil ~ith an option to
lease dac~ent and an EI~.
Upgrading and operating the existing four tllnni. court. would be
categorically ex .... pt frol1 the provleiono ot .CEQ~. pursuant to
Article 19, Section 15301, Existing Yacillties.
REC OI!I!Bl!p1I'l'Icm
Staff recoll'11llendo that council:
1. Reject tho CSI proposal f!lnd tha: PATe recocncmdatlon nnd dIrect
staff to evaluate the site and ratutJ1. to Counci 1 with
:!'ecomm~!'ldations for alternate US.eS)
2. Provide statt with critoria O~ par~~oterB on alternate uses
for the property; and
3. Approve the attached BAO "stabUshing a CIP In tho ."ount of
$30,000 to r.~ove and baCkfill the .~1~ln9 pool.
If Council would prefer to proGoud with the C$I propos~l or the
PATe recommendation, then staff reco~endQ that council:
1. Approve the attached BAO .st8blishlng a CIP in the aBount of.
$30,000 to remove and backfill the swi~inq pool; and
2. Direct staff to return to Councll with the neCfJSBar~'
documentation for council to accept. the; preferrod pro·p(Ios&l or
to i~p18ment the reoommended use.
CHR:293:94 6
!
Respeotfuliy submitted,
" "\, f ((-tt t.-l-~~:" ~ / '.( c 1...::.<.-_",_ "'--_
. JANET FllEEt,AlID
~~:7)lYBt
o ector inance
Attachments: Attachment A (Site Plan)
Attachment B (Summary of Proposals)
Attachment C (Proposal Crit.eria)
Attachmant D (N'otice to Neiqhbors lmd Neighbors'
Responses)
Attachment E (Conutllt.tee's Evaluation of Pl'oposals)
, Attachment F Budget Amendment Ordinance.
Attachment G (Copies of Complete Proposals)
co: Community Skating, Inc.
Palo Alto Tennic Club
Middlefield Homeowner's Association
Related Staff Report.:
CMR:293:94
CMR:426:6
CMR,)76:9
CMR:525:0
CMR,547:0
CMR:513:0
CMR:248:93
7
if'
;/
';';:
, r~,IJ!:'<fL I' tl,,,~'I;I, 11' ':'~""" " ~,~n~M!1
,;~r::':;~-i;J:(':!;~',~:,<·:,;>t·;~:I':/{',': '~-, ~-.~:' ~ \,~,~':.:., ~ ";;';-:"I"~~~;',
'COtJIrI'ty AS:'C!I:'OIt ~,~,."''', • "".,1, "·~_'.,.·I., ":,-'~:'-:-':~'A' "?;' ", .. , '~,,,., ,.~--, .. "', -, -1V\"':'r_'..:,,,--~,:,,,",'T.',.'''': • .:'~'jI.,''1'')'.'':'¥.''-:'~'''':-:''~~ '~i.:'IJ'.'~~~ ~ .... ,. '."" ... '''""', .... ".''' ... .' ..... ,.. '. -; ... ,,' .... , .. ';,;"" •. ~,.
@
t; r ~~ I
/
SWim_&' ~hniS Site
3005 MiF~lefield Rd
:~ I rl----'
common
parking &
;;; access.
II);' ~:"!
1...
Winterlodge
3009 Middlefiel
. Rd.
.!2
commOn parking
& access
common
p~rlcin9 &). !Q
,access ::/,
./ ..
~~~
I.IoTN( SVSOIV1S10~
'l"RAcr N'1,)6~
JL Wf II . 5:3 'II;~
~ ... ". -,--"'-, ... --,--... -... .".,,-...-"'''--
, 75 I I .. I
. ! ", '" '" I 'v'" ",L . ~ @ I ! r ~ 'f--
/ \"')
,·,tOO' v'
I /1 ~""""''''''a'';';. ,-.. ".--.j . .:-~ . ,
, ' ... , '0. I
(6s) ~ ~ ~ ;ll'·'-·'·~·-"-·":;J~.":·" ::"1
.. I-.. ~ ,
, :7 l ': ' :~§ : I L.··,··,,·. __ di 8 '~.. .... .!
i ;:. £ l r·' ", .. )
;i~-7.;;'''' • j'
® I
> ~
~ "',. -~ ""'= """ 3,';1~ "':Ij-1
t:_:':~
\ .. , ~
.0>
---, --. ,-MIOOLEF'IELO ~ ____ _ .-. oJ:!:O,,!~,~,,,, If'~ ~." .......
"---1---ROAO _. ._, __ ._ ,
"> ,. 0' e, i
!!i
" I
127 . 53 • 019
,.
\:"
~J c' . SC'!',',":"";.,;.: "
" r
"
,
"
"-'-;"':':-,./' ..
A'l"I'ACI!KElIT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
Polo All.2.. Tennis Club RecpMellitA-taQn
PATe recoluH):nd& that the site be improved and maintatned as a
generd public tennis facility with a "inimu" of four courts. PATC
Also recoaaends the COU(ts be desiqnated for professional tennis
instruction 1n addition to general public play.
Palo Alto Tennis Club,
The PA'l'C io an independent organization whose purpose is to
sonct!on and provido tennis in the community. It fulfills the
f'IItM'S de.arid 'tor an Ol:9",nized tennis club and has J'!laintained a
w~mbershlp of 600 to 7QO tenni. players of all agcB and abilities
for the laBt 20 years. KSl!bol"ship is open to the qeneral public,
inclUding 80 quota tor non resid~nt.s, and any Palo Alto resident is
ellqibla to j01n h:madiately. PATe conducts eight. weekelid
tournancmta-each: year t.hat usa a number of local tennis court
oiten] ltnd hosts tho United States Tennis Ansociation CUSTAl
Northern CalIfornia Junior 'tournament which draws over 400 younq
tonnis players and dopends solely on PATe volunt.eers tor its
opor~tion. In addition, pA.Te annually grants scholarships for
tennis playot~ at Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools, supports the
Foothill C<J.lle90 men's and women's team tennis, and makes donations
to thb youth tennis progra~. in East palo Alto.
PATe'Re,coMended court configl.lI3tion
PATe reco:M.onds that at a minim\lJII~ the existing four courts be
iltprOVec1 And ~aintained tor gene.ral public use. As an option, three
additional courts could be constructed in tho area where the old
.111 .... ing pool js located and li<;lnt. for evening and nighttl.me play
oCfer still another' option for the front four courts. PA'rc
rocoAmends the three following specIfic court configurations I each
with corresponding inoreaBes in cost.
Lovel I Upgra.de the e>:istInq four courts to Palo Alto public
court standards (cha~ge fencing, resurface & reorient by
90 d.greea l .
Leval II Li:lvel I i1!provemel'lts plus install new lights and
8t~nd~rdo with timer for public play.
Level III Add three new courts without liqhts in the back: site area
(to be done in conjunction with Level. I or II).
Estilnated coat of Level I improvements is $55,000; Level II is
$99,000, ~nd Leval lIt Is $75,000. To help offset these costs, the
AITACHMI'NfB rA.OB l
:':
\':J
\ " ,
. . .,-., . ;, ",-.-".'~ '.".-. ,_ .. "_ .. -.:, .. "; ... ~'---,,-
Q
PA'l'C "HI donate $10,000 tward8 tM coot of Lovel I (for a net
CORt of $45,000), $15,OOO"tovards the cost of lovel II (for a net
cost of $84,000) and vill conduct 'undrllio1ng activities to apply
to"ards the coot. of Level III it it is done in conjunction "ith
L-ovel J: or II.
Community Skl'tinq. '~~--P~Al
CSI hae sub .. itted a (orlOU proposal to lean. ths "it:,. for " tvo
phMed project, tho Hidto'J" Recreational Cent"r (HRC). During
Phase I, ~hich i9 to be th& first five yeats or the lease period,
CSI propo.os to develop tho ahared parking on the sUe and
refurbish and oporate the tour existing t<>nnis courts. CSI has
co .... ittod to spend up to $100,000 tor Ph.~e I of the project.
Phs •• II is tho c¢n.truction and oporation ot. teaching 8viftming
pool, a small qymnaaiu!I!I, d clibana and t\iO tennie courts {see Fiqut."E.'I
1 and 2 attached to this au"nary ~nd inclu~ed in tho CSI propo$~l).
CSt propo90R that tho City fund the capital costs ot Phas~ II of
the project AS a r.Qcreation~l facility tor its citil;(!J)s to be
operatecl hy CSI. e,'H is willing to co~n1t to tho dovelopment of
the tennis facility and shat'cd pl'lIl"'Kinq {Phase Il regard leas of
whether the City i. willing to fund Ph ••• II.
Co~unity Skating, Inc.
eSI operates the: Wint(lr LodCJo. ice ekat1nq x ink, .... hich it leases
from th~ City on a long term lea9D~ PriQ~ to incorporation, CSI
was the 1'rust for CO~]I:Iunity SkAting, ftn orqanh:ation or cOl!UD.unlty
volunteers which prevented _ the dOJ::.olition of the ice skating
facility in 1983 and successfully quolHied the ballot initiative
"Which authorized t.he city to acqu iro the wintllr Lodge sito by
oxchanqing a city owned pnrcel in the baylands in 19B5. In 1981,
the Trust b-o.caut'l tho nonprofit corporittioh, CSI, in order to leas&
and operate tho .rink. Since 1981, CSI ,htliB ov-srseen thO: l-e8ainq of
the property, tho. rezoning-ot the tlit" and the expansion of' the
rinl<.
Proposed Use and operation:
CSI proposes' thR dev~lopaent and operation of a KRC 1 similar to tho
tonor Chuqk Thompson s"i .. and T<lnnla Club, but which " .. \11 bo open
to all citl3ens of palo. "Ito. The hell i ty "ill include tennis
courts and a family/teaching BVimAing pool in. park"like satting.
During Phase I, tonnis will be tho primary ac'tivity and 11111
include skill devoloplnont and non-competitive recreation. CSI
proposes to manago and operate the tennis facUity at no coat to
the City; howGvor, CSI requests City assistance with upkeep and
lI!aintenance in order to keep down the fees charged to users.
During Phase rI, activitios will lncl\lde primarily SwilTH!'Ilng (8
teachlnq. pool), and tennis; ho,*,liver the proposal raquasts that
other-revenue genor~ting recreat.ional activities not he precluded
,"
" ,./'>
I
j
;
i
" ..
at th& faoility. Fees to b<I charged liould parallel other city
proqramB~ CSI 'Would man,,",ge and opel'ate the Phase II facility as a
8epar~tQ but compatible 'operation from the Winter Lodqe.
MRC Pha.e I activities would be in full Buromer operation from mld
May to mid September. The summer schedule would includa ti~es fvr
group and private teaching, open usage, group p~rti~& ~nd
tournaments. During open usage ti~e8, keys woUld be rented to the
public on a monthly baeis. Phase tI activit.! •• will include
teaohing tots and young children ito a pool spec1011y designed with
shallow areas. The summer program would amph.ash;e s'Wia and tennis
for children and adult. of all levels and will havs dedicated pool
times for cO'lDJ'l'lunity recreation and special needs. The .t .... cillty
will include a lawn area for_ barbecues and picnics. {luring,' the
winter months, activities will be monitored to cO:DploJlent schedules
at the Winter Lodqe .l3Q that parking \/'i11 not baco»o an issue.
Winter operations will be on a scl1eclllled basis, but with a\Jch }tHIS
emphasis on group usage.
All facilities and activities will be open to the publio, and
qualified instructors will be coromissioned for group and private
lessons. The MRC 'Will emphasize non-competitive recroational tautly
fun accessible to evoryone.
Proposed Improvements
Phase I improvements: CSt proposes to refurbish the four oxistlnq
tennis courts by cOll'lpletinq the roinil:'lum hr:pl.'ovcltlonts required in
the RFP (installing erosion barriers, ne~ nets and post hardwara~
restoring electric power to courts with timer and adjusting the
focus of lights on the courts) I makinq some additional repairs: ,a,nd
possibly installing different lightinq which will hava 108s i~pact
on", the neighbora. CSI also proposes to upgrade the existinq
parking lot and develop the landscaped parking area on the tor~~~
Sholl Oil gas station site located directly in tront of the Winter
lodge. (The gaB station site parking ar.a was included In the Clty
approvals of the Winter Lodge expansion I but develop~ent of the·
'parking lot has been delayed pendinq the Shell site anviron.,ental
clean up.)
Phase ,II improvements: The Phase 'II site plan inclUded 'With the
proposal 1s conceptual (see attached Figure 2). It includes two
tennis courts, a teaching swimming pool (in a different looation
than the existing pool) and a nulti-purpos9 g~~. Th~
c'onfiquration of the property would be planOled with the neighbors
in mind and 'Would include tennis courts with low lightinq and a.
pO,ol in an area Qf the parcel which \r"ould lninimiza noise iapact on
neighbors. The number of tennis courts that can be accoWtlodated in
Phase II wi.l1 be limited by parking requirements, fire access and
operational considerations, including lIIinimizinq the impacts on
neiqhbcrs.
AlTAoo.aNT B PAGS J
",.
l .. i .
"
1
1
I
I
L I' .
i
I
! I '
\"
!
t
'.
If the courts are the only devalopsd facilit~· on the aite, tho
Gxist!ng parking and that to be devoloped ~n the Shell lot will Do
sufficient. If a swim pool and gym ~re developed, 36 more parking
spaces will be needed~
Financial Information
nue 'to tile seasonal nature of the businasseB and the parking
restrictions on the site, CSI has determined that although the
facility can be operated at a nat profit sUfficient to operate and
maintain the facility, revenues would not be sUf'f1cient t.o payoff
a loan'to construct 'the facility. Therefore, CSI has proposed the
phased approach to providing a combin~d swim and tennis facility
and h~s requested that the. City fund the capita! costs of the
developMent of Phase II of the projoct (relocated tennis courts, a
t-a8chinq. pool, and a multi-purpose gymnastum ). CSI has committed
up to $100,000 for the development of the shared parking areas a.nd
the refurbishment of the four existinq tennic courts (Pllase I). Up
to $50,000 of this $100,000 is for the improvement of the tennis
site; the ot.her $50,000 is for the Winter Lodge portion of tho
shared parking. (CSr is r€sponsible for tho Winter Lodge portion of
the shat"ed parking regardless of whether CSI 1s the tenant on the
tennis site.) CSI also proposes that the City be responsible for
the cost of removing and filling the existing pool and requests
that the city help with upkeop of the tennis courts durinq phase I
of the operation. (Estimated costs of ex:penses to be. bot'ne by the
city are discussed .in At.tachment E of the staff report).
aId Items
The proposal offers a $1,000 purchase price ror tho option, and up
to $50,OO~ for the improvement to tennis courts and parking and
landsoaping on the site. There is no monthly rent proposed.
Non monetary benofits listed in the proposal are the provision of
a mid-town recreation facility for the citizens of Palo Alto which
includes a family swim facility with 4 children's teaching pool,
ths possibility of the faoility being a Centennial project for the
cityi' and the development of a facility which 'Will fully realize
the intent of the 1985 ballot initiatives.
proposed changes to documents
CSI requests that the lease term parallel the term of the Wintar
Lodge lease, which is a 20-year lease commencing January 1990, and
that the rental payment be the same also ($100 upon signing of
lease, no monttlly rental payment). It also requests changes to the
standard lease clauses requiring that the Tenant be solely
responsible for the cost of development, maintenance and repair so
that the city may participate in these costs.
A1TAC'HMD('[ B PAOI! 4
"
\
i
,
!
III
• • •
•
"
L
EXlSmG
PAJ'iKlNG
D
\
\
.
L _____ _
FOR"'~A ..
SHELL
STATION
PAICE COUAT
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
EXJSn/>,'G TREES
AND LANDSCAPING
RESIOENlIAl .
'--;:=:"CONOCMNIUMS
Figure 1 CURRENT AREA AND SITE MAP FOR
PROPOSED MIDTOWN RECREATIONAL CENTER
Attachment 8 page 5
. ~,
I
I
t
I
I
f
I
J
[8]
NEW PARKUIG
EXISn.'\IG
PARKING
I AA(A) I
ISTATION I
~ .. '.·.P-.b .. OL •..•...
,'--". .-
;.' .. ~,.
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
MULTI,
GYM
VET.
CLINIC
. \
\
--'--------'-------------------
FIGURE 2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR
MIDTOWN RECREATIONAL CENTER
Att.chment B page 6
A'M/MlIlIlrn'l' C
PROPOSA~ EVALUATION CRITERIA
The factors incl~dad in tho RFP and on which th~ propou~ls wero
evaluated are listed balow, The COJ!.\mittoe/s aVAll.latlon of the
propo'sals is orqanizad around those 9fmerlll catEHJol'l-es.
1. Proposer's experience and abl1ityt
The prOpOS91"'6 experience and k.nowledge ot the proposed
recreational operational propol~r's tinanoial capability
(evidence of ability tQ finance, five }'EHu'" pro-CorDaJ,
businees e"Po"tise nnd ability to carry out tho proposed
i'm.provements, oporato the faci 1 It:or' , and: provi<lQi tho
recreat.ional service; evidonce, of the prQt"Qser' a ability to
maintain good relatiQns with \IDOl'S, and neighbors of the
facility.
2. Consistenoy with City goals and objectives:
Consistency of the proposed USB with cxistln9 City goalo and
objectives (as Sf)t forth in the Conprehenslve Plnn, zQninq
Ordinance, anti Municipal C<XIo t1nd this request (or proposals) •
3~ Impacts of the Proposed Use;
The impact of the proposed lise upon the: "'1nter Lodqe
operatioll, immediate neiqhborhood and the cOI~lJnity .gO-norally
(in terms of compatible Gorvices and uses, traffic inpacts f noise impacts, etc.).
4. Monetary Returns to tha City:
Adv.antages to the City in tf'lrnl8 of llonetary returns or
services offered to the public, in particular, Pl'lo Alto
residents, or both. Illcludes consideratIon to be provided tQ
the City, including the purch.se price offered tor the.opt!on
to lease.
5. Public benefit:
Extent to which the proposed use and/or sorvices satisfies a
public need; the degre~ of public accQss, I.e. numbers of
people, especially City residents ",and taxpayers ... hich ",Ill be
~erved by the proposed use; the fees that will be charqed to
Palo Alto citizens, if any.
6. Cost to City versus public Bonefit
Extent to which the public benefit of the proposed uso and
operation justifies. its cost to the Cily.
'.
,
AT'1'ACllHEII'l' D
SVMHARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSALS
The Evaluat.ion CODll!littee received responsQs from 21 neighbors of
the aite. All but three of the responses are from occupantK of the
condominium development adjacent to the Winter Lodge at 3065-3077
MiddlefIeld Road, including the president of the Middlefield
Homeowner's Association. 'l'lr.'o responseR were from neiqhbc.rs on
Ellsworth Place (on the other oide of the aite across the creek),
(me of whom is the o,wner of residential apartment buildings on
Ellsworth Place. Eleven of the responses are a form lGtter
reque.ting that the Evaluation committee give highest priority to
the noi88 impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood in
evaluating the propoBals~ They pOint out that no development which
increasQs the level of outdoor noise can fail to increase the levol
of noise reaching neighbors, which is already excessive. The other
letters echo this sentiment a.lld, in several cases, also
specifically appose the CSI proposal for a fHl'imming facility due
both tQ ite impact tm neighhors and the low need fox such a
facility. Several letters mention that tennis use of the site would
be ac~eptable as long as the courts are moved no closer to the
residences, and the iIT1pacts of noise and light on the homes are
mitiq~ted by a combination of regulated hours of operation 1.3nd
noise barriers. other specifics mentioned in the. letteru are that
there btl no additional traffic generated b}' use of the site, no
outdoor speakers or music a~pliflcation, no bleachors or outdoor
activities involvinq larqe numbers of people, and no competitIve
sports.
,." .
" .
.l
i ,
!
""'''''''''s ·H5.:u9."lVi
Ro"'\l.lI"n,.'€'It}i
.flS~.22t.I
Ro;-.\;T1Uo.'
f'dJ.."'cticn5
--tls,W.nI1
Tn~u)'
·H'i.::t29,~
. .' -" -", ~. ~_~ .... ...: __ .. "'''' C,,",'-A"""V ~ .,;,;4 ... ~,''':-,;E.;''':'_'''':'''.~;'<';; _ . ,; -. ".'< _ ...
~ityQJ?alo Al:tQ
!JqmfmClIItYFi/L1//0.'
November 17, 1993
INVI~ATION TO REVIEW PROPOSALS FOR THE SWIM/TENNIS FACILITY
LOCATED AT 3005 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (former Chuck Thompson site)
Dear Neighbor of 3005 Middlefield Road:
On April 26, 1993, the Palo Alto City Council approved the
Request for Proposals (RFP) for ar: option to lease the City
owned swim/tennis facilitioB located at 3005 Middlefield Road.
At that meetinq the City Council also directed staff to
provide an opportunity for neiqhbors of the site to
participate in the'proposal evaluation procese.
One of the requirements of the RFP was that proposals for
development and use of the site be at no net cost to the City.
III response to the RFP, the city has received two proposals:
1) a recommendation for use of the site from the Palo Alto
Tennis Club; and 2) a two-phased proposal for lease of the
site from Community Skating, rnc. Of theBe responses to the
RFP, only Phase I of tile proposal from Community Skating, Inc.
meets the requirement of 110 net cost to the City.
The proposals arc in process of beinq reviewed and svaluated
by a Proposal Evaluation committee (Evaluation Committee)
consisting of city staff. The proposals, together with the
Evalnation Committee'n recommendation, will be forwarded to
the City Council, probably sometime in January. 'rhe City
Council has the right to reject any and all proposals or to
accept that proposal which, in its option, will best serve the
public interest.
To provide the opportunity for neighborhood input into the
proposal evaluation process, the Evaillation Committee is
inviting any interested neighbor to review and comment on the
proposals. The proposals are av'ailable for your ,\"eview at the
locations and thnes listed on the opposite side. Any
col'tUnents you have on the proposals may be submitted to me
either in writing or by,telephon!=,! (address and, phone number
below). To be considered by ,the Eval\lJ.!ltion Co.rrunittee, your
comments will need to be submitted no later than Tuesday,
December 7, 1993.
Plea&e call me at (415) 329-2662 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
(J~c"rl;lC~f_
JANET FREELAND
Senior Financial Analyst
City of Pale Alto
P.O. Box 10250, 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(415) 329-2662
... ~
]'.o.Boxlill...,,"(l
P.ooAltl),CA9-l.U3
415.329.2-lt.'l Fa.\::
>" '.'
~~ti()hs lind tirnos tor reviewing wri.tten proposalsl
Real £.tate Division Office
Civic. center, !I-leVol
·250 Ha~11ton Avenue, Palo ALto
. (U5) 329-266~
Reference Desk.
Kitchell P.r~ Branch Library
)100 Middleflold Rood, Palo Alto
(US) )29-25a6
Referonco Oesk
}fa; n r .. ibrary
12:13 Ue)(ell Road, Palo Alto
(US) 329-2436
Hours: Mon-Pri, 8 a.m. - 5 p4m.
Hours: Mon-Thurs, 12 - 9 p.m.
Fri-sat, 10 a.m.-6 p.m.
Sun, 1-4 p.m.
Hours: Mon-Fri, 10 a.ro.-9 p.ln.
Sat, 10 a.m. -S p.m.
Sun, 1 - 5 p.m.
, ,
.. . ,. , ....
, .
o
To, Propolal Eyaluation Committee .
. forthe SwimlTenni. Facility lit 3005 Middlefield Road
Clo M •. Janet Freeland .
City of Palo Alto Department 01 Finance
W. request the Evaluatl()l\Committee to llive high.st priclIity to millimlllnQ the
nois.e impact on the surrounding resident •• 1 neighborliood. In their evaluat.on of
proposals for development of t~e site at 3005 Middlefielel Road. No development
which Increases th.levol of outdoor activity on this site can fail to increase the level
of noise, and any additional noi;~ (8nM! fall to reach Our homes, which are close to
these faCilities. We already experi •• l£e exc~Slive noil. from the outdoor ice rink
which operates from September IhroughMay, and year·rolind noise would unfairly elctend this disturbance.
·THIS LETTER ALSO SUBMITTED 81
ELEVEN OTHfR RESIDENTS Of THE
CONDOMINIUM COMPJ.E! AT
3063-3019 HIDDlEfl£lO ROAD
tAOJ~CENT TO WINTER LOOuE).
i ,,'13
) ·~.jl·~ lJ {( t:) ( .. ~-~ ___ ~~::! _____ ~_~_~.
5<7 ~ /\(, (I,!(, 'v\~ f:'tf
.If?j.:;, .
;1;,( Ad, (:l 'i'I?"V
Hi4dleti_14 Roa4 Ho •• ovnera A •• oo1atioh
3065-3017 Hiddlefield Road
Polo Alto, CA t4306
Hs. Janet Freoland
Senior Financial Analyet
DapBrtment of Finance
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Bo)( 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Freeland:
OacoIDber 3, 1993
On behalf of the Middlefield Road HOllleowners Association, thank
you for your invitinq us to review proposals tor a swln/tennio
facility located at 3005 Middlefield Road. Wo have: revie .... 'e<l tho
two proposals, one a recoMendat:.ion from the Palo Alto Tennl~
Club 1 8nd the oth&r a proposal from Comnunity Skating, Inc .
.eA..qk(Jfound
Since 1988, when our condominium complex was first occupied, many
of our rGaidents have been disturbed by noise fro~ the ice rink
activities. We have negotiated with the City and Co~rnu"ity
skating, Inc. in an effort to help find solutions that we could
all livo with. The Winter Lodge has modified certain noiso
sourcus, fluch as the Zamboni machine, which we Appreciato.
However, we teel that little or no progress has been ~ad~
regarding acoustical it:llprovements to reduce the volume of J!lusi<1
and people that invades our, homes daily. Further, we ~9read to
allow D wooden fence in llGU of 8 cone-rete ",all with the
understandinq,thare would be 10 fest of new landscaping along
said fence. Instead, there ~re bushes about 3 feet tall, 'Wryf.ch
we feel is not in keeping wit.h our agreement.
Several of our residents actually hav~ to leave their homes to
escape the nois8 1 especially on wee~end8, and this is with'their
windows closed.
We feel that the noise level as allowed by the current us~ permit
to the Winter Lodge 1s exco8sively permissive, given that tho
f8cility is but a few feat away from a residential zone. In the
past few months, nois9 from the Winter JAdge has e~ceeded even
these extreme standards on several occasions. 'rhe Police
Department has baen called out at lenst six: times in the past
three months since the rink's Roason opening in Saptember 1993,
and we estimate that naiqhbors have called the Police Departroent
or the Winter Lodge a minimuM of 15 to 20 times during that time
period with noise compiaints.
, ,
'. :., 'I-~-___ -:-:; '. --~'<'.",k '.
, . . . ;
, ,~:","";..,;,,,,,.~''''''-!< •• :~ ..... .;;_~,,o::~,
o
Followinq are our comments.
1. Additional activities adjacent to"our property should not be
allowe.d to qenerate any additional noise that can btl heard
on adjacent residential property.
2. Wa request that the hours of operation of additional
act·ivities be limited to those of construction hours:
Monday through Friday
Saturday
Sunday
8;00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. to n:OO p.B.
3. We request that tho tennis court's currently on the property
be moved no closer to our property than they al!'eady are.
4. Wft oppose any use of a swimmincj pool, given the. noise it
would surely generate. Rinconada Pool is a public pool, and
tho YWCA on ROBS Road is planning to build 8 swimming pool.
Ther~ is also the C.A.R. pool down the street. With three
swimming pools in close proximity I an additional public pool
seems superfluous.
There is a severe parking short,age on Middlefield Road.
Some of cur residents (two units) have no outside parking
space in the condominium complex and are forced to p~rk on
the street. We hope the City would li~it activities that
generate the need for additional street parking.
6. We fear that any.additional noise-producing activity on the
site in question will further reduce the vallie of our
property.
We now h3ve peace and quiet for three (summer) ~onths out of
twelv~. Please do not take that away from us.
Sin.~erely YOU;s,
/~I])L0~
Dianna Wieqner, President
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
.'
... ~;"
. ,
/::': c'
Mo. J'"et Fr .... lond
OoparlUoont of Flnanee, CIty of Palo Alto
260 HaoIlIton Av.n""
p~lo Alto. CA 04303
00," Mo. Fr ... """,
3077 MiddlefIeld Road, Ho. 201
palo Alto, CA 94306
Deeember O. 1993
Pl .... convey the followIng ob.ervatlons to tho carmltteo ev.luatlng propos.l.
for tho .wloVtonnls facility at 300~ Mlddlefl.ld Road.
'M. pr~tty " •• r010nllll In 19S9 frOOl .ultl-f ... l1y r •• ld.ntl.l to Public
racl Ilty to brIng It. zoning d.,lgnatlon Into oonformlty wIth Its US6. Prior to
the r.zonlng of this slto, tho adjaoent property to tho south hod already baan
c-oovei-ted to lIlult1-famlly res'dent1al use, to conform to Us zoning d631Qoat1on.
Slngl. f..,t1y homos surround the sit. on two otil6r sIde.. Th. homes on the south
end east s1d'.e, of the sw1rrm1119 pool and tenniS courts are in close prox1mity to
the boundary botw.en tho propertl... Tho condomInIums to the south overlook tho
u'Crtat.1011: area. This site i$) therefore. unsu1tab16 for intene1ve outdoor
recr •• tlon~l u'. by larg. nuobar. of people, such a. tho progr.., proPQsod by the
~lnt.r lodge.
If this property Is further dev.loped for recr •• tlon, the conditions If.lPO.ed In
the current LIS. pe""lt fo,· operation of tho skatIng rInk ar. an unacceptable
"'ldol for tho r.st of the property. Tho.e conditions Impos. vory generous
boundarl.s on both tho volume of nol.o perillttod and tho hours such nols. can be
made. RestrIction. are enforcod only on a complaInt baSiS, and thore Is no
~chonlOMto pravent repeated vIolatIons. Tho r.sult ha. been an endloss cycle
of dlaturbMCll, calls to tho Winter lodS. or to the police, temporary r.ductlon
(at but) of tho offondlng nol •• , followed by r •• ""ptlon e>f nol •• at tho original
disturbing l.vel.
COnditIon. IlOposed on the use of the .wh",lng pool and tennis courts should
Insur. that the·volume of nol •• roachIng the surroundIng hov~s and the hours at
whIch sveh nol88 I. transmitted are compatlbl. wIth. resldentl.l n.lghborhood,
lrrosP9<)tlve of the • ..,Ing d .. lgnatlon where the noise originates. OperatIon of
tt~se facilities should be confIned to tho hours spaclfled for exceptIon. to
nol.e limIt> In section 9.10.060 of the Palo Alto CIty Ordinances (8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 8,00 p.m. Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to
6,00 p .... Sonday. and holidays). rn. pro.lmlty of our "erneo to the swl"",lng pool
400 tenniS courts means there w~ 1 1 be very l1ttle attenu6tfon of nobe as 1t
travels frOQ the source and reaches ~$. Theref~re, maximum permitted levels of
noiS8 should be atated 1n terMS of the volume of no~se permitted 'to reach the
~urround1n9 resfdences, rather than the lo&v.els al1014ed on the 3ite,' These should
not oxce.d the lovols ostablished In •• ctlon 9.10.030(b) of the City Ordinances,
which is specifically not subject to tho exceptIons permItted in section
9.10.0~O.
To this end, actlv1t1e$ 1nvoh1ng large nlllTlbers of partiCipants., team
compet1t1on, and hrge aud~enees sho~ld be forb1dd~t' en the property. Ble~ehcrs
should not be erected~ Electron1C MlJ)IU1cat1on of sound, both music and
I ....
I
'.,-,.'.
•
\
',',
o
6J'tf\()f,I~nt-s' on 4 publte addr-.~8 ,ysten, should be lAlnfmhed or, preferably.
prohlbHod. Additional lGM1e C«Irt.4 (or .any other facl1.ty for outdoor-
4¢tlvlty) .hoIIld I\Qt be <O!\.tr~tod In the "back olt. aroa," only a feo feet from
our "","s, Il$ pl'Qjl(>SOd by the PATC. Facllltle. such as outdoor barbecues and
pIcnIc tablo$ $hovld ba ~Itod a. f.r a. po.slbl. (roo r •• ld.nce •• and noIse and
$0$11$ f~ t~ art., should be contaIned.
It ahould not be 00",,'''1'')1 for the nelshbor. to be dt:!turbod for the •• condItions
to b<I enror(~' ·the. ~l .hoold be not to dIsturb the neIghbor. In the fIrst
pla«l" CIty authorltl •• should .x!'tot aptrators to hoMr the eondltlOfls of tholr
UI. peJ1llt voluntorlly, and thero should b6 sharply escalatIng levels of
wnl$tJoeot 'or Npeotcd vlolatlOM. cul,.lnotlng In rovocatlon of the u •• pennlt
If vlohtloos cootlnv&. RUNMlblo City officIal. should have authority to
.flfQr~ UlG .. eondltlOi\~ pr"'Ptly and effectively.
Sovnd att%\iotlon ahOuld not totally depend on the s&lf-r~.tr.lnt of the
opiIrator8i the C .. OOo:Ut1009 attached to' 8; uso p9rft111t should also fMndate "passive
restraint!," such as a~o!J'ttc materft'lh and b4fflss wh1'Ch absorb noise and
prevent 1U reacMn!J thf) surroundfl19 ~:s. ""fhaS9 should be f~l1y 10 pla'C$
beforo the f~ctlit1~s C~ into u,e,
Any proposo4 n •• con.tructlon $hould be ev.luatod by .coustles expert. for Its
{"!'Ict on the noln tron ... ltt.d to the neighbors, not only from .wl .... lns/tGnnh
actlvltlos, but also (rO!l\ the 100 rln~. For ex .... pl., will nol .. from the outdoor
rInk, .nlch wIll trayel In a direct Hne to tho w411 of tho 9)'1'1 proposed by the
IIlnter lOd9/l. berHleote1 b.c~ and furtoor ...."lifl.d In tho al"'ctlon of our
rea1deo(':o$? Will 001:&13 frOOl the pool .aNll l 'M'MthGr ysed for sw1tm1f19 Dr tenn1s,
bounC<) "Solnst thO "011 of the leo rInk end be deflected tow.rd the ...... homos?
" 6<>t .. l1.d .to4y of tlloso end other conSideratIons by Independont experts (1 ••• ,
"hoot ollont I, the City of palo Alto, not one of the Intorested portIo.) is
1~rat1va, .
AS. Public Faclltty. thl. property 1. an anom.ly In a r •• tdentlal n.tghborhood.
OYtdoor rcc, •• tiQMlacttvltl .. ""Ich 9/llerate • 1.'9/1 yol .... of not ••• ro
Inappropriate on •• It •• 0 clately $urrOundod by hoIr ... -and year-round
lotlvltles would 11IPO~ an und\le Addltl~nAl h4rd.htp on realdents who are already
~ndurln9 exca"lve noloe ,,(>til the Wlntor Lodge frOOl september through Kay. I
request the City toonell end shff to conSIder u..,. for this property othGr than
revIving attlvltleo whIch hayo not be9n ~onducted on the sit. for ... ny ye.r •• and
wMch Cire no lG11g&r c@p.at1bls 'tilth the, character of the surrounding
neighborhoOd.
221"0 rely.
, I..-iwJiUJ.L-C.~
&ntVt&Y8 'c. Dean
L .....
'/
I
MiCHrLl SlMON
JEff GARAVENTI\
3077 MODllflaO ROAD #102
PALO ALTO, eA 94306
Janel Freeland
Senior Financial Analyst
CHyof Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250. 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94303
·' .. :. ...
Re: Proposals for SwinllTennls hl.cJiHy at ,!O()S Middlefield Hoad
December 5, 1993
Dear Ms. Freeland:
Thank you very Illuch for your requesl for fOlllmenls olllhc proposals
for the swim/tennis facilities al 3005 Mlddlertcld Road, which Is lust
outside our door, In Ihe last unit In the 3065·3077 Milidiefleid Road
Complex. We welcome this opportunity :0 provide Ihe ell), of 1'&10 Alto
with a complete plclUre of Ihe impact the~ devclopments would h,we 011
the man), residents In tile area.
We are very nervous about the proposal n'om the operators of The .
Winter I.odge (CSIl, not only for the proposal Itself, which would g[\'e
them more ways to make more·nolse every day of tile year. but also (or
the inaccuracies throughout the documents the;' presented. These
Inaccuracies, as well their lrack record of purposeful disregard for their
neighbors. leaves them with very lItt1e credibility In ollr eyes. Some of
these Inaccuracles are:
• they claim to" have successfull)' come 10 mutually agrecable
solutions" to their noise problems with neighbors; a simple check of police
records would sholY that to be ;lbsolulcly false, unicM thc}' ronsl[ler II
mutually agreeable that their nclghbors nlU.~t rilll thc police constantly 10
complain about their cxreeding lawful noise levels.
-on the the Proposer's Questlonalre,
1122 -Noise Generation -their answer " NOlle", This not only
contradicts the written hody of their proposal, It Is obviously not true
1130 -Existing animal and bird life on site -their answer
"None". This Is not true. We personally have observed numerous btrds,
and squirrels.
We question the need fot addltlonal swimming facilities In this are-a. Not
only have we heard of the pool construction planned by the YMCA, but It
was reported In the Palo Alto Weekly this past September that the public
swIm hours then In existence were being being cut back due to lack of
use. We ask you to do a thorotlgh Investigation of these Issues before
agreeing to tile swim club idea.
We question the legitimacy of the tennis portion of the CSI proposal, In
that their tennis court refurbishment S('Cms an Interim proJcx·t, a
stepping stone to the development of the swim facility that, according to
their drawings, would actually reduce the number of lenni.> courts. J)()('s
It make sense to refurbish courts, only to deslro}' them?
in the end, since It appears that the heart of Ihe CSI proposal, the swtm
center, Is clearly Far beyond the budget parameters of the RI'I' for this
Site, the city can only legitimately consider a tenniS facility. We urge you
to evaluate who Is realistically better able to run a tennis center -the
Palo Alto TenniS Club, wgh their years of tennis experience and proven
track record, or CSI with no prior experience in tennis and a proven track
record of Incompatibility with their neighbors.
We do not know the full history of how a noisy outd<Xlf public farlllt),
was allowed In the middle of a dense residential neighborhood. \'Jhen you
think Of what's best for the people of Palo Alto, don't forget that we too
are ,he people of Palo Alto, and deserve to have our needs considered.
j{ . 1, <61j.)A~,\
~M~/f
Michele Simon
JeFF Gara ven ta
r .. "
; : ,
"--.:,~; ... "~' "\.-.
Ms. Jan", Freeland
Senior FInancial Analyst
City of PaIQ AI to
P.O. Box 10250.250 Hamllton Ave.
Palo Alto. CA 94303
Dear Ms. Frecland.
December 5.1993
I\s a resident In the condominium complex adjacent to the Winter Lodge,
I would like the Proposal Eva!uaHon Committee w consider my comm<.>ots
regarding the proposal submitted by the Winter Lodge to Jease the Clty·owned
s\'oim/tennls fa.cilities at 3005 Middlefield RQad.
On Ute Jast page of Insert A-ll of Section m (Dc\'eloprnent Details) of
Auacbm~m A of the \VintC'{ lodge's proposal, tbe Winter Lodge Implies that it
has a good working relationship with Hs neighbors (although a careful
reading of tills section reveals that the drafter of the proposal had ~he clarity
to refrain from actually describing Ule relationship as "good H
), As Ihe
Evalualion Committee appraises the feaslbllity and reliabilIty of the Winter
lodge's proposal. I strongly suggest that the CommHtee take a look at the police
records of the number of complaints lodged against the Winter lodge for
disturbing the peace and for viohuing the noise ordinance over the pasr few
years, I guarantee that th<:'se records will show thai the Winter Lodge
continues to provoke complaints from ifs neIghbors due to the high volume of
music and other noise. (The current noise ordinance faT the operation of the
WJnter lodge Is, of course. wholly lnadequa(e, but that is aJlotJler slory.)
Illve dire<:tly arross from where the new facllily would be located. so
excess1ve noise from the facUity is of prime importance to me, Apart from the
fact that the h3story of the Winter lodge's relationship '",ith its neigh bon
gl\res me little cause, to expect that it 'hill do whatever needs to be done to
mtnimJze any noIse pollution emanaUng from its new proposed facUlty. the
proximity of tbe (acUity to my propen)' makes Ihe presenre of a public
s'Wirnming pool complNely unacceptable fa me. The noise from the people
using the pool would be much too great. as It "'QuId undountedly carry through
the air in much the same way that the noise from the Winter Lodge currenfly
does. (At least at this point In time. r am spared from excess noise during the
summer months when the Winter lodge is. closed.)
Furthermore. the Palo Alto. TefUlis Club is correct when it states on page
3 ,of Its proposal to buUd tennis courts on Ihe Jand~
As the CIt)' is aware, the n1CA on nearby Ross Road currently has p!rulS
10 build a new S\\imming pool as part of Its expamion program. This
'n'Quld reduce the demand for s~vlmming in the Midtown area where the
City-owned site is located. Thus, we do not envision a swimming facility
as the best use of this propel1y for the Palo Alto communit)'.
Furthermore, tennis is the ideal u'se compared to swimming mainly due
10 parking constraints 8nd tile pool/wise lJUisance affecting
nelghboljng resJden(s. Also. the use of water resources and linuted
year·round use are factors not appHcable to tennis. (Jta..Ucs added)
\
o o
In short, the land should be used for tennis courts, not a swimming pool.
1J1ea.s.e IJ.sten to those reshlenrs h11.0 live near Ihe Winter lodge and who are
urulerslandably rogy about the prosp«( of another Winter Lodge-deslgned
fadUlyso cJOS<' to !helr property.
Thank You.
Paul Kroner
3077 MJddJefteld Rd., #202
Palo Allo, CA 94306·2553
December 2, 1993
Jnnet Free hmd
senior Financial Analyst
city of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 9430)
Subject: Proposals (oOr thO'
Hiddlefleld Rond
Dear Ks. Freeland;
.. :,
V.dim llukhan
3013 Middlefield Rd., 1204
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(US) (9)-5011
tadA/tennis facility at 3005
This is in rl)sponae to your invitation for the neighbors to review
the proposals tor the recreation facility at 3005 Middlefield RQad.
1 would like to express ~y concerns regitxdJnq ~no of the applicants
... community SkatinCj, Inc. I bel lev$. thft;t hlqh quality of management
and ability to establ i nh good ~el.ations with noiqhbora are 'very
important rO-qulrc~ents to an applicant. In this regards I feel
strongly against ,CollJ'aunity S)c:atinqr· Inc, ~hictl Ilas shown poor
manag(lJ:umt of the Winter Lodge n9 \\'~ll as ignorance of the requests
fro~ the Winter Lodge neighb¢rs.
Por at leaat 4 years tho Winte)" Lodgo "",nag-amant has ignored
demands from. the noiqhbors to reduco the nois&. Th~_ neighbors havG_
proposed a I,umbor or ,1IeaBU);"es t.o reduce the ,noiBe~ Among them, for
example., was a Buggestion to apply sound"'absorblng matorials to the
8.xisting walls and hanq baftlos to lower the sound reflected in our
direction. This sU9qestion, vhich is quite ai_ple to implement and
inexpensive, is dated July 1989 and h1J.B boen repeated in D8iny
letters from the: neiqhbors 8inc~ then. Wo lost the hope to get a
pusitive response {ron the Hinter Lodge to this and other
proposals.
Let me ~lGO givo you just a (ow examples of how the Winter LodgQ
Icooperatos' "with neighbors in resolving the noise problem.
1. During-octo"ber 199:) ray wife and ayself 5 tines called the Winter
Lodge asking t.o make music leso loud and advise people not to
shout. We did that only when the noioe bocame unbearable. All 5
times our requests were ignored. A t~'pical answer is the one I got
on October :)1 at 9 :00 pm from someone who ropresented the
rnanagement: I I have to run MY b1.1Siness'.
\
r,"
; ' . ..• ~~ __ .,.._ •.• _~-.~:,...; ...... __ ~ ....... _...;,..,w._"
o ()
2 .. After we realized that calling-the wint.ar Lodge made no sense we;
started complaining to the police. By thiB time tIl<' police lIIust
have at least 5 records of our complaints. Unfortunately tor ·us,
only 2 times out of 5, the police actually tlBAslIred the noise
level. Here are some reQults of th(f last tle-astireruent taken on
Saturday, N"ovambor 20 at 9:30 pm by ofiicer Dennis Navor-ve of t.he
Palo Alto polico Dep.artment. out of 20 maasutol'Jents takenl 2 'I.·ere
above 65 decibels (db). more than 10 -above 62 db ftI'.<i almost all -
above 60 db. This is a violation of the condition" of tho U ••
Permit 89-IIP-50 given to the '~inter Lodqe (the I1so J?en.it allows
54-56 db at the time of the measurement). Just for your
information, t.he EPA recolTll'llended level ot noiso-aft<er' 9 plt is only
50 db. And this was just a regular weekend 8~atjnq, thera ye~e no
special activities on the rink!
3, In course of my phone conversation about the noise prcblon with
the c.ity Zoning Administrator 1lancy Lyttle, she refused t-Q discuss
the issue with the Winta;: Lodge nanaq811ent orl the qrounds that-they
, have ignored her requin;!?;lents in the PDst'. It appunrs that our
requests are not the only ones ignored by the ""inter Lodge
management.
Every week acldB new facts to the bad enough roco:td of tho Winter
1.,,(1dge management attitude to the neighbors. Ther6' 'WlI'lJ extensivo
usaqe of loud BpeakerB, running Za~ni n~chlne aftor \0:30 p~ v1th
the noise far above 60 db, playing hOCKey at 5: 30 aHl in the
morning 1 etc,
I believe that these facts sho~ enough that coamun1ty Sk~tinq 1s
already very bad neighbor and will riot be capablo oC runnioq tho
l1I'l:iim/tennis facility according to the conditions imposed by the
City. I strongly recommend the Evaluation committeo ~n~ the city
Council to reject their proposals.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the eValuation
p:roces~.
~incerelYI
';;9 ~;v"-Aaf7
Vadim Bukhan
"
.. :,'
'Tqlephone comments received 11/29/93 from:
Dolore~ Meadows
775 Clara Drive
Palo Alto, C~ 94303
Ms. Mta:adowB is concerned about additional traffic and noise. She
says 't;.here's too muoh traffic now in the area and does not want any
use whioh would qenerate more traffic. Does not want to Beo a pool
on the site. Tennis courts are ok only if noise ie not 9~eat. She had not actually seen the propo3als,
, ,
I
·;, .-
NOllember 19. 1993
Jftne! freeland
C!ty of Pelo Illto
P.O. BOI! 10250
7.50 Hamilton "venue
Polo Rlto, en 94303
0ger Jan~1 Heeland:
", 1 ..
o
730 Ellslllorth Place
Pelo nllo, en 94306
Tilis letter Is in regerd 10 the proposals for the City-owned swim/tennis
focilitles located at .1005 Middlefield Roed. I he,'e reviewed the
proposals et the library, and halle some comments to offer on the
propo,al put forth hy the Community Skating, Inc., in parlicular. and
regerding the tennis courts, in general.
I Ilooe filled in this house since 1976 nnd holle olllned it since 1980. I
flall. spoken to you by phone selleral times over the yea,. regarding
proble.ms with the tennis couns, ",hich are situ.ted anoss the Heek
~irectl.y behind my house. Rbout a year ago, I think it \LI0S, residents on
this street ,ent the City [ouncil a petition regarding tne eHpansion of
the HOling rink. asking thot our concerns ahout noise be kept in mintl.
This pelltion, I was told, 1110·\ read at the City fountil meetiny.
Th~ [urrent proposal of the Community Skatinq, Int. states that the
organization hos been in tontact with neighbo,.. of the skating rink and
had some typo of dialogue going on with the neighbors .. only the
nearby condominium \LI0S specifically mentiolled, !Joweller. The fat! Is
thnt the organization hes neller approached the residents of Ellsworth
Plate and we continue to be ignored regarding .plans lor tile site in
question.
The site Is for too small, in my opinion, for the ambitious plans lor a
family recreation sile suggested in the propo.sol. Most of the octillities
mentioned would be outdoors and Ille already hUlle 0 noise problem
without the addition of additiollal tennis courts or use of the su,irnming
pool.
Oller the yenrs I hnue phoned you w.th complaints regarding the
eHisting tennis courts. When night lights hUlle been alloilable. people
sometimes ployed in the (.ourts until midnight or beyond ~nd then
otherssturied at b or 7 am Ihe neHt morning. Someone was able 10
•
," -'
,-...
turn the 119ht~ bOtk on oiler the timer tu,nea them off! If lights ore to
be usea again, I reQuesl th61 Ihey be timed 10 H,m off by 10 pm, that
Ihe Hmer! be under lock so thaI they ronnot he touchea oy
unaulhoriled people, Ihot authorized personnel be few and accounlable
and, finally, thnl some authorized person be known pUbli(ly and 'be
~uailable by phone 01 any timo of Ihe euening or night should a problem
develop. flo alternalive to having a knollln perlon oL.oiloble during off
Murs might be 10 lelephOne gil 10 report someone playing during
unauthorized hours. In 1I,Is I. Ole, poll(~ ronlent 10 be railed for Ihls
purpose would be needed and lhal loci mode public We, tne reSidents,
must hal'. Someone 10 lurn tolole 01 night or ecrllj In Ihe morning if
peoplepl6ylng 01 unauthorized hours ale preuenllng u~ from sleeping.
(Do you remember my calls Ihl~ pasl ,ummer aboul people Playing
hOCkey in the tennis cuurl'! me sknlps might hat •• damaged t~e
(ourls. Tlrl,! happened Hl.erol limes and is onolher good reason for
thOle (Oults to be beller supervised!)
Because 01 preL.joul prnblem! wll~ Ihe (unent (ourts, I object 10 Ihe
proposal to odd more lennls couns, dnd requesl I~at Ihe lime of
operalion of the (ourh along the !leeK be reslrilled to Ihp hours
between 10 am and 10 pm. fhe (ourts certainly shOuld be locked by
some responsible p,'non who will unlock them tor permiUed hours of
play and lock Ihem again orterwards. What is needed is a person who is
responsible, for Ihe opera lion or tho co uris, who ran be relied upon 10
do hiS/lrer JOb. and whom Is re6ch~ble by phone if something 90es
wrong. Anolher problem willi the lennls (ourls is Ihol balls .re
regularly Idndlng In OUI yarus, $omellmes hilling our Muses. TMrefore,
we risk being hit by balls while using our backyards. If something could
be donotD preL'enl Ihe bolls mcchlng our properties. this Ulould be l.ery
welcome 10 Ihe residents. [!.Ie would rolher ho"p peace of mind IMn
Ihe lenni! oalls we regulorly collett.
Were Ihe CIIy to add n tequlremenllo 811 proposeh that noise butfen
be placed belwMn the (ourts and msworlll Place. Ihis would ~e
llIelcomed as en efforl toward long needed relief from Ihe noise.
crealed hy bolh Ihe rourls and 1I1e skating nnk. llIe ,limply accept that
we C8nnot use our b8' kyards while Ihe rink is in ope"alton due 10 the
loudspeekers. Often. late at night after the rink has closed, we also
hear Streaming end shOuting from 1he parkln,g lot. One often tannot
discern whether there are IIgh1l 90lng on or jusl kids halling fun. Jlere.
again, Ihere should be lome r~spoo!ible person in the vorking lot after
2
","" ,
. ,
.1
o
the rln~ closes to make lure that the customers feol'e end do not t,ong
around Ihe por~(ng lot.
In ~umm6ry, this I. a rrudentlal .rea, and il therooro 10 be
recreational octiultles. II Is time tllore 61so be /lersonn~1 10 responllbly
supenoise end be accountable for t~F,se o{\lvIlIl's. both lor Ihe sofel'] of
their customen 8nd in considerotlon of the, righh of oil the resldenH to
enjoy their homes, not only those resldenh who ore orgonlzN wilhln
Ihe condominium. llIe ore not orqonlzed on {IIlworth \Iniel. our
petition 1l'8S the only organized, ectlully llIe h.n'e engaged In Ihus lor,
but It did fulfill the tontllon, I believe, of brklglng our 9Hislonc9 end
concerns both to the City Counrll end to thO Community Skating, ·Int.
Yet, 10 thl. day, we heue yel to heor from Communlly \k6I1ng. Inc.
despite the stalements In Ihelr (urrent prOjloial (Mt they ore In
communlcallon with the neighbors of the lite. I do hOpe we don't hucle
to form .ome kind of organized preUure groulJ in order 10 houe our
fOncerns addressed.
\inrerelq you, I,
~~.?~-~
Natalie Fish~r
126-6159
1/
~-..
\.
-.ow 10 \Xi I~fi~
t.~~ lUlU ro SMI II\'J FO. .;c;.,,; ~,,/
s";,,;,. ~«,';'/,4~fo:' C;1"/ ,t'/'4d
,fY, &)1 AtI'-0, .e'e! 4,.,/~4c;, ;i%8X, (iL'1'1&J3
:.~ 00 ,",; ... J""'" 1 .. P7 ;... ,.~ .~ ... ~ .. '~" ....... 'Nd
"" .. ""11 C~r J~ '1; o'IJ I .. ,. '"'-~" , ... ." J.>., ._ , ....
1 ...... 11 .. , ......... ~ .. 10''''''. ~....., " .. "II. ",=" r:'.'" t-t_t.
~,'(~ k"rlll rw\ J~.
. . . MES AGE" # _,
OAtf·
.t7t.-At &,64,,(
..r.m>,4, """'I" /",.,;£,.?/ 'Y"~d '//,y L~/ J/"'''W d::.df',{-/a:r ,oM IfN ,,"
':;;:~A-; $4Ai; ",,,/!.,,,, /1"',,'-&'''9/'/,,",'-""<mil .4/."./,{,ff,-,/".,.:;h/,/,t./,?,£; /4
c,lwf-w//.7uO' .1'/.4''&/ h' a.. ..... It~.xWI'Z .. ~t>1':S eW,4vi"~;/a'/~'r7f('.Ni'· /1;. O"fl'·I.,,/rv'~..d2 ~//
/f'~£f 4/. ~. ,"" /",/'T 4 d ,,N 6" --'k'7 q-V/,{. "7""""" ,/ 4-~f --G./
4r /;*rP.r/ /S ~t/ ,r./t' .sl~L· dt' /~~~c! /;? #..;~~ wit. 0/4 .. -oJ/"" ~;f-~/) .M /Ac /"'~k s .6-~,.r
6%'",r/h 4..., q,v" /I' ",e dJ;&r.4'_ /"'£j ~' LJf".,//ft ,f?,<, -1/ <,NO .• ,/ "/,
.7Ns",&',#'£V4:" 7l/ A~,?? k n< ,'''> ,A ,·,,/4/.£/,, .4,.;, ,?",hN .t".",Iv.,h.;f
~/}"''''VAc''''''}~A,f "".. /P ... ·hC a/tiny A#e, ()f /..tJ ev ... vk/("~r-"'1' t:Oo.'ll-' ""'7Q ,h c! ,,(. ,~ ..... r("S"~rh,A.
~/ &'" k /It! OFj)':I~A>/(/se "/"'-/..,{,,r 4/,td h ,#("'''''",R ~Y<'h/'Y e,<,,,,h, rs /.£, .v.,4/
. k Wh;tk ./:m .J.M!c' "'~v,-,/""C"s,.;t~S".
d,/p .it/At,' "",;ton'; .md'/'£' ~i$ fir"CNV", ,4~env/;.u>.n>"'4T. dr",-Ik-l«'d'"
?lW/ ,Ii" .s-ha,t""f oWL;" «,,'(././..-/ A "'w /'I"fk~,d; bW'," ~;I#M ;{ 4 .. " k,.."
OA'f. .,)
• . R.EPL';I: . -.'
7.144/ yo~} /A o~.,.,ye ,e. .y~u-C7¥1~.&V~.
"
00
I
. . .
~!lii~~";";";"';;,i~"<~."-~·~\.j~;.hiiv.t~~:~""'~~''';''''''~l-~~':;;~~--w.~,,,,~_,,'~c.,: .. ,.
" •. ). , , .:'/
1I'I"I'ACHKBII'l' B
coMMITTEE'S EVALUATION Of PRQPQS~LS
p'alQ Alto Tennis C~ecQmme~ti2n
p;ropo.e.r /• experienoe, ability to operate, final10e and uiat.in
qoo4 ~.l.tion. wit~ noiqhbors.
PATe has con'sider.fl.ble experlence and knowledge of tennis based on
ita function over many years in fulfilling the area's deruand for an
organized tennis club and eliminating the need tor a City sponsored
club. The committee was appreciative of PATe's long-term co~munity
involvement in t"ennis and the contflxt in which they make a
recommendation for the future use of the City-ownod site.
As a recommender o.f a use, not a proposer I t.he RFP criteria
partftin!nq to the proposer's financial capability, bUsiness
expertli'Js, and ability to carry out the proposed improvements and
maintain good relations with users and neighbors, do not apply.
cO.Blatancy wit~ city goale anQ objoctiv •• ,
The recomlQended use is consistent 'With City goals and objectlvea as
sat forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The
PF zone would allow city-owned end operated tennis courts. The
rocoJ'MI.ended ut,e is consistent with the goals and objectives as set
forth in the RFP in terms of being a recreational use open to the
pnblic, but not in terms of providing these services under 10n9
term lease at no cost to the city.
IMpaats of tbe propose4 uaet
The proposed u •• is compatible with the ~inter Lodge operation and
would not siqnificantly impact traffic or parking in the area.
However, this use could result in impacts on the neiqhbora in terms
of light and noise. The light impacts could b. mitigated either by
eliminating lights or by the usa of neW' lower liqht standards that
deflect the light straight down. The noi •• problems could possibly
be mitigated by regulating hours of play and/or installing some
sort of noise buffer. Impacts of noise and light would be more
difficult to ~itigate if courts are added at the rear of the site
in what is now the pool area.
Honetary return. to the City
If the city implements the PATe recommendation, PATe would donate
of up to $15,000 to offse~ the costs of improvements. PATe would
also donate new nets and windscreens for the courts after the
improvements have been made. In addition, PATe would conduct fund
1t.1TIt.CHMlNl' i! PAGE I
.
.,
\
• ,
I
I· I
I· i
.,'--, ,
: ~ ,-
\
. ..
~ • .;.._~.;;,,;:_._o--<;' o::#~~n"~:",,~.~~., ... ,:.....,·~~,,-.~.;~;~~-i.:" __ .
o
raising Activities to apply towards the costs of Level III if this
level is dona In conjunotion with Level I or II.
COlt. to the city .04 PUblio B ••• tit
coats to the city,
PATC lists the-net cost (after PATC's contribut.ion) of the th-retl
recoDmended court configurations as follo'Ws~
Level I:
Levol II:
Level III'
$45,000;
$84,000/
$75,000.
Ltlval III 1s ,to 00 'dona in conjum::rtioll with either Level I or_ II.
Level r -nnd III 'Wo\\ld total $120,000 and Level II and III would
tote! $159,000.
In -a<tdition to the above, the City's costs, were it to implement
th6 reco~~ollded use, would include the cost of the pool removal
($30,000) J and tho tennis faoility's proportional share of the cost
to pave: the front parking lot ($7,600). Dependinq on 'Which
configuration ~a8 irople~ented, total capital costs would be $82,600
to $196,600. Ongoing costs to the city would includo the annual
~intonance of courts ($400 to $500 per year per court); annual
~rklng and landscape maintenance ($1,800)j and annual staff costs
associated, with ~c9ulatinq ,etnd scheduling the courts ($400). Please
reier-to chart A attached.
AldO, the Committee W~B concerned that the cost estimates provided
by PATe were too low. The committee estimated that the cost of a
neW' c(,lurt \laB $30,000, and that reorienting the courts 'Would 8:MOunt
to lIuch the same work and cost 88 e. new court. Representatives of
PATe assured the committee during the illt.erview that the
reorientation WAS more similar to resurfacing than constructing a
naw court, and in addition_ that they had learned since Bubmitting
their recoJUlEtndation that the court reorientation could possibly be
done for evo.n 16BS. (Since the interviQ-'w, PATe has obtained a
lover estiaate for two of the court configurations: the Level I
eatbaate is $43,000; the Level II ostimate is $72,000.) How,ever,
th~ Coamittee remained concerned that actual costs could
signlficontly exceed PATC's estimated figures.
Puplie Benefit,
According to PATe, its recommended use should be implemented by the
City because it meets a demand for additional tennis courts in Palo
Alto and a need for courts for private tennis instruotionj it makes
pOBsible public use of the courts with no fees; and it preserves
thlb site for publio recreation rather-than a private operation
which would charge tees.
I' .'
. -.;
"
. . -. ' ,
.,.,:",-<~",~~--,-,,,",,,,,;-.~-.;, ,,""-~,>;:.,"' .~~,,"""'.,~,,---
"
PATe points out thot the d ... and for public courts is strong in palo
.Uto, and that tennis Is on the up."ing a. fndicatecl by the fact
';hat ."",bershlp in the Northern california Tennis Association
(HCTA) ha. grovn oignificantly and aora and more people are playing
every year. PA~~ BtatQS that in addition to the '1enerol public, tho
Palo Alto/United Stat~8 TennLs Association (USTA) r~nques and the
StMford Junior High School (JLS) haV& been resurving and ualng the
lIidtovn courts; on a t'.aqulat" basia -in apitG of theit" present
condition, and that without ~ldtovn courtR the present scope of
PATC/USTII invol\'o .. ent ",ill h."o to bo roduced" by about one-third.
Org$nized tennis in tha erea_involves nine tennis tournaM8nts/year
and l ... gue play. Tourn ... Mts no held Konday through Thursday, with
up to 100 people partlcipatln9 in each tournOille.oti 110r-~' r.ollrts are
needed so the g.nora I publio" can Bti 11 pl'.y during tournaMent
timQs. More adults ol're plt.;yinq tennis Bnd Moat must play after
work, putting a de'P.and on courts at t.his tJse.
Also, lncause the City's sx~stin9 C,Qurt.r. <h.l not psriOit instruction
except tor lessons condv\.tCd by the CJty'8 Recreation Department,
PATe reco~ends th~ courts be desigll,tted for proiQssional tennis
instruction In additIon to <Jeneral 'vublic play. Compared ,to the
Cueuta Tennis C~nter in Mountain V1£w and ~s PalmaB in sunnyvale,
Palo Alto doos not adequately provido a placEt for private tennis
instruction, and these COUrts could till that neerL
PATe states that tennis is (I batter use of the cite than swimming
becaus9 it reqUires less lHu"ktn9 than a pool and produces less
noise nuisance affect 1ng neiqhborlng residents. Further, city
operation of the courts ","ould I'1n'kg tho facility av.ailable and
affordable to the generAl public. 'rho. n.eJ!lbership tees necessary to
justify th~ cost ot d6volop~ont by a private oparator would
sover.ely limit the use of th~ facilities by tho general public~
This JIiIay be: cont,rary to tho 1985 llind exchanqa which ,",'as result of
heiqhtel10d public interest to preserve -tho site for recreational
purposes.
Tho CQWlittee appreciated the benefits ot PA'l'C' 9 ~ecorMnendation for
additiona.l <:ourts; n01iO-vol" tho COJiUlLtteo could not support PATeln
contention thll;t the courts would mQct ft public need to relieve
contention for public court ••
P~lo Alto ha8 54 pUblic court. (not counting the ~idtown courts),
• h19~ nunDer compared to other citiea. According to the City'.
Recreation Division, there has never boen an ovo~whelminq demand
for the courts; there are always courtu available during tho day
when tournamonts are held. Tho ullidtown courts have not been used
for tournaments for tho last onu or two years with no noticeable
negative iR:lpaots. The Bituatlon at night is different, because with
fewer lighted courts, the d013and at niqht 113 hiC;h. Jfo'W9ver, Jf
more lighted courts arc to be provided in the city, the midtown
courts are not as good a choicA as others due to their proximity to
An At"H..-.aNT Il PAoe,
L
;,.'
x.sidenHal usss. CUbberley is a baUer site for 119hted courts
because those courts are further away fro~ tho.noarest residential
propertiea. Also, if the City is to add Rore courts in Palo Alto,
Greer Park is a bettQr location because tennis courts &re ~~8ter
planned for that parI<. In addition, .. any courts In tha City sr. In
need of resurfacing. City money may bo better spent on rcsurfacin9
eXisting-courts rather then spending monoy on uP9rl\dlnq,
raorienting or liqhtinq the midtown cour-ts. There iA also no
suppOrt f~r the contention that there is a noed for city courts for
private tennis instruction. According' to the Recreation D.tvislon,
people do use public courts at ti~e9 for prlv~to t~nnl&
instruction.
In addition, the Committee noted that the dddition of tonnis court$
in the rear in what is noy. the pool aroa could result In problcuB
for neighbors, and yet it the aito UB-'iJ includ~s only the: four
e>:isting courts, it 'Would be an undarutlltzation of the 1.5, act'o
site.
The Col!'tmittee. concluded that although tho. Addition of tennis courts
in this location would offer many advantages, tho. de}lland or pobllc
need for these courts was not enough to justify tho. cost to the
city.
community SkAtirl9.L~
P1:0P0i9&f'S experiencel ability to (lperat., tiD,nc •• i\d. Main-tain
11004 rel.atio.s with Doi'1hbon,
CSI has the experienco, knowledge, and ability to l~aso, i~provG
and operate a successful recrn3tional opol"ation. OperAtod and
lea~ed by CSI since 1987, the Winter l~dgo public akatlnq
ndruissions exceed 28,000 per season, and ctlch year SOMe 3,000
preschoolers through seniors enroll in a .... id9 rat'tCJ9 of skating
classes, and demand for the recroBitional faoility continues to
grow. A City of Palo Alto recreational IGsson proqr&~ 1s run durinq
all three yearly sessions, .and there are }!lore than 22,500 dedicated
iCG-time or party admissions annually. Thr;) Winter Lod<Je has
received, national recognition from the Ice Skatinq Institute of
~arica fo~ the paot six years, and has been Go~ended by tho Santa
Clara county Board of Supervisors for receivinq the Palo Alto
Chamber of Com.rnerce Tall Tree Award as Outstanding' Or9anitol'otion tor
its perseverance, ingenuity and contribution to ths co~~unity~
csr has demonstrated the capability to manage the complicatod
logistics of seasonal programs. It has loyal fanily custo~aro and
experience offering the recreational prO<jral!ls in skating that
appeal,to tamilies and emphasize development of skill rather than
competition. It has a proven track record of 60rvice to th~
community and has demonstrated how public reoreation can he
successfully operated by highly notivated community volunteers.
'~ .'
" ,.. ',' < • . ,_ ,.:-~)~;:i'.-~ .... ~<-,.¢",,~·"" ...... .;.~---:.:-< ,.~-,,,:~,,.;..-~.~.,,,
c~
'< ',Y
C:SI fiMnced the exponsion of the Winter Lodge facility including
a small t~achinq rink, office space and storage area with funds
from b.usiness r-evenues and froID; a private loan to CSI.
CSl has demonstrated the nocesRllry experi6nce and kno"'ledqe to
operate the proposed" facility, and the ability to finance Pha.e I
improvements up to $100 1 000. However, without financial assistance
from the city, it does not have the ability to operate Phase I or
to finance the cllpital improvemt:tnts for Phase II. Aloo, tho
. committoe was concerned about the relationsh.tp between CSt and its
neighbors. CSI's proposal states t.hat it has worked with neiqhbors
for more than four years, has spent over $35,000 on noise abrl;tement
buildings, land13capin9 and equipJIlent, has succossfully come to
'mutually agreeabJ.e solutionf3:, and that it has a working
relatioftship with neiqhbors. However, in spite of the effort and
expense "CS1 has 'lone to mitigate the effects of noise from the
Winter Lodge operation, according to the neighbors' letters
sllbmitted to the COJ'tl.mittee, the so efforts have ftot been completely
successful in solving the noise proble1'!ls or in maintaintnq good
relations with the neighbors (see Attachment 0 to the staff
report).
ConBiRtenoy with city goals:
The proposed use is consistent with city qo~ls and objectives as
set forth in the Comprehensiva Plan and the zoninq Ordinance. The
PF zone would allow private recreational use of the site with a
conditional use permit. Tho proposal is consistent with the goals
an objectives as set forth in the RFP except for its cost to the
City.
Xmpaot of tba proposed use on the neiqbb~rhood an~ community a
~he impacts on the neighborhood of the Phase r proposed use (tennip
only) are the same as for the PATe racommendation. The VSG 'Would
not significantly impact traffic or parkinq in the area, but could
have impacts on the neighbors in terms of light and noise. Noise
and light impacts could be mitigated in the sa~e ways as described
under P~TC section.
The impacts on ,the ne.ighborhood from Phase II developlllent and
operations would be more significant and include increased traffic,
n~iee ~nd light impacts. Additional parking (36 spaces) would need
to be added to the site to accoJTuT'Lodate the combination
swimming/tennis use. CSI proposes monitoring activities on a
seasonal basis 60 that schedules are complementary, and pal"lcinq and
traffic will not become an issue. To address the problems of light
~nd noise reaching the neighbors, CSI proposes to configure the
site so as to have the least impact on neighbors. The proposed
cabana style structure associated with the pool is also intended to
act as a sound barrier. csr proposes to work with neiqhborsj
, .. J
\
/'
\
,'I
."':-,~,.,.;:::""-""",u-.,..""';~.I,.;~'i,,,,,,~~~·,,;,;;,;,;-:,.~~~,,,:,:,_. ,
o
howover, as expressed in their lettors to the committee and as
deaoriPed above, many neiqhbors are concerned about the potential
impacts of this use and CS!'" ability to J>litiqate those impact ••
Konetary raturn. to the city.
The =on9tary returns to the city are the $1 1 000 purchase prico of
the option, the $50,000 worth of improvements to the tennis courts
and parking and landscaping on tho sit ••
coat. to the City an4 Publia B •• efit
costa to City:
Phase I
CSt has committed up to $100,000 for the development of Phase
I Which includes refurbishing the tennis courts, and
development of the shared parking and landscaping of the
parking areas on site. $50,000 of the $100,000 is committed
for the tennis site; the other $50,000 is for the Winter Lodge
portion of the development costs for the sharcd parking and
landscaping. CSI is responsible for the Winter Lodge portion
whether or not it becomes the lessor of the swim/tennis
faoilities. (The parking area was determined to be shared
parking by council action on July 29, 1989, and the
development and lIlaintenance costs for the parking area are. to
ba divided between each use h3Bcd on the required parking for
each use.) The estimt\te for tile shill red p8rking lot paving
nnd dl"ainage is $33,000 1 and for the landscaping is $24,500,
for a total of $62,500. If CSI is the tenant for the
Bwlm/tennio site, it will be responsible for thiR total cost
of $62,500. CSI'R estimated costs for the refurbishment of the
tennis courts is $15,000 to $20,000. The committee was
concerned that actual costs to refurbish th~ tennis courts
could be significantly higher than $20,000, and th.t this
combined with the cost of developing tile shared parkinq lot
($62,500) could put costs over the $100,000.
Even if the above costs remain within the $100,000 commitment,
the City 'Would still be' responsible for the cost to remove"the
existing pool ($30,000); ~nd costs for upxeep and ~aintenanc~
of the courts ($2,000 per year for fO\Jr courts). (Refer ,to
Chart 2.)
Phase II:
Phase II of CSI ',s proposal includes the devalopment of the
teachinq swimming pool, gym and cabana. Although the proposed
site plan is conceptual, staff estimC\tes the cost to develop
thia facility would be $700,000 for the pool, cabana & gym,
, :,
"
, './'
I ,
...... ,L ....
,
!
1
I
,j
and $f,iO,OOO for two tennis courts. In additioll, t.he City
would be responsible for the cost of :removing the existinq
pool ($30,000), for a total cost of $790,000.
Pllbl10 Benefita,
CSI describes tho publio bone-Cits of itl} proposal as the
d-evelopno.nt ofInd operation of oft Midtown Recreational center (MRC),
a t'ocronat.t..onlll park.. which will inolude tenniD courts and a
fnaily/touohing .~i. pool, and which ~ill offer non-competitive,
recreational ta.ml1y fund AccGssible to everyone. CSI states that
tho proposed u.e will fulfill a significant noed for a te.ching
pool in Pdo IIlto. In addition, the proposed facility will
coaplQ.~nt ~nd ~notlt tro~ the current ice skating program which
boaots ovor 1,000 students each Bession who would be a source of
C\l8.tO/:llero for expanded ract"ol\tional activities. Another advantaqe
is: th·t;l 8conoBics or shl\rcd st.aff between the Winter Lodge and tho
KRC. Other publio bttnefits include the additional recl"eational
activities "hich ",ill be offered in addition to swimming and
t-ennis, such llS 61JF1,":l,Or sports camps including vollny ball, ice
skat1n9 and d.!llnce olasses. otha.r benofits cited by CSI are. csrls
service to the cQJIl,."l!l.unity and proven tracK reC(.lrd. csr also states
that the proposod recreationa 1 usa will carry out full intent of
l~nd exchange neasuroo passed by citizens in 1985.
Tho COMlt,tee considered the pUblic benefits of each phase of the
proposal in terns of tho costs:
Phase I
Undo:r the Phase I propool'll, the City would have the benefit of four
r~furbished courts operated by CSI as described in their proposal,
fo, UBe by tho public for fees or SUbsidized by the city. Assuming
capital COG.tJJ \tsr" xept under $100,000, the City's subsidy costs
vould be relativoly low ($2,000 par year for four courts). However,
tor .any of the SAne reasons as ol!tlined above in the discussion of
t~e &vbluation of the PATe reco~~endation, the Committee conclud~d
that the operation"of four tennis courts subsidized by the City is
not th .. b<ist UBB of this City site. It Is not the best location for
th .. additiono( courts1 if the City were to spend additional money
on .aint~ininq tennis courts 1n Palo Alto, it would do so at G~eer
park. Alao, th&re 1s not a pl·.essinq recI"Gational need for
additional courts o.~ for additional tennis classes. The City would
not expand lt~ teaching proqram even if it had more courts
a\:,,,llable. In addition, classes offered by CSI on these courts
"Would be in cOJ:Jpotition with existing City tennis program, and
SUbsidized by the city as woll. The Committee could see no reason
to rent keys for the courts when there ''H'e over SO courts in the
cIty. In addition, tho recreational activities proposed for the
aro.a where the pool noW' is, such as: picniCS, games etc. are a
potential source of addit.ional disturbance to neighbors, and yet if
"rrAcmm·i'T BPAOB1
\
'-
i·· ,.
,
C)
this orGa i& not us&d tor recre&tional purposes Bnd tha site is
liraitGtl to the t()ur tennis COlll:ts, the 1.5 acre site would be
un<lerutiU.ed.
Ph ••• II
CSI's propos6d l'ffiC would b& a tlno .recro~tional facility to have in
Palo Alto with aanf benet its; hovevor the co.-ittes could not tind
Bupport for cst'. claiM that thore i8 • high denand or PUblic need
which would justify its cost to th .. City. There 14 no demonstrated
need tor an additional teaching pool in Palo Alt.o. Ther. i.
alr,eady one year .... round pool ~t Rlnconada _ and t.h'feo :sur.uaer pools
(Gunn High School, Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLSI and Jordan Hiddl~
Schools). The cOJUllittee also had concoros about t.he feasibility of
the propo8cd operation. According to the Recreation Division, the
demand for a teachingpoo) i8 not high enough to support a whole
facility devoted to thi.. Rlnconada pool u •• is high; ·the other
pools have low use~ Adult use 19 vhere the :laney 1s nnde on pools.
There is no guarenteo: that the oporAtl<:m ",,111 generate the
attendance HUMors' used in CSt' B f iva YICar pro tOl"l!!Ia and thftt the
City 'Would not h.eavo to subsidize tllo operation, The COl'1!:littec also
questioned ho ..... l'Ilany people would \11';.(\ the 9Yi:!l and vho~har it
fulfills a public need. Anothor pctential problc~ 1s that all
facilities would be in demand by ~OBt users et tho same tine, iltter
school.
In addition, the facility "ould be In direct cOl>petition 1I1th
eKisting City facilities. The Co~.ltt.o questioned why tho City
should put money into COUtts or pools for CSI to opor~to and take
all profits, if any. If the City paid to build this facility, it
would seam nore appropriate that the cit)~ oporAte it ('tnd collect
its revenuQs.' Right now tho City is reducin9 pool USG on b'eekol"ld,8
due to lack of 4em.nd. The co~itt.o detor~ln.d thut if the city
had this proposed facilIty, it should .hut dOIffl JLS and Jordan
pools.
Sugary of Committee Eyaly!!:tioD
In SU~l!1ary, the 'CoJalt;.tee concluded that although both PATe's
recommen~ation end CSI's proposal had Dany stren9thB and bonatlts,
neither fulfilled a public need qroat onough to justify its costs
to the City. The: CODU'!'.litte.e 'Was awst appreclativ.Q of PATe's
experience .and knowledge, its lonq terlll cOl!.J:.unity involvement in
and contributions to t€.!"nis in Palo Alto and its intore9t and
contribution in 'Makinq the recommendation. 'rho strcnC)ths of the
recol1lJDendeQ use include its consistency with City goals lite set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan ~nd Zoning Ordinance and its
potent.ial for relatively minor imp.ftcts on tratf'i.c, parking and the
neiqhbors. Although there are benefits of the addition of these
four to Beven courts to the City's inventory, there is not a
demonstrated public need tor these midtown courts nUfficient toO
, ,
".
"\
/'
jUetify the cost to th" City. It is the conclusion of the
. Commit.tae that if the city choose to spend this money on tennis. it
... oulel be better "pent on adeling. resurfacing or lighting tennis
COUtts at other siteR. The CSI proposnl was strong in tQrms ot
cst's experience and .knowledge of leasinq, i"rnprovlnq and operatinC)
a suocessful recreational facility vhich appeals to families And
emphasizes s):il1 development. CSI has tt proven trac);: record ot
service to the cOlWllunity and has demonstrated how a publio
recreation facility can be operat"d by highly ~otiv.teel volunteer
group. other strengths Inolude the proposal's conSistency with
City goals as sot forth 1n the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and, in the case of the PhaBo I proposal j its r61atively
minor impacts on traffic, parking and neighbors. Ho .... evor, altho\.l9h
there ... ould be public benefits to the addition of the proposed
recreational center in tho City, there is not a demonstrated public
noed for this type of facilit.y to justify the cost.s to the city or
its potential impacts on the neighbors.
In general, tho. committee concluded that there ,-,as not a hiqh
demand or public need for the proposed recreation~l sorvices to
justify their cost to the City; that the only proposed YO" which
would not significantly impact the neiqhool's (use of tho tour
existing courts) would not be the best use of this 1.5 acre Clty
oW'nud site; and that the neither the CSI proposal not' t.he PAte
recommendation should he recommended to council for acceptance or
implementation~
),
.it
"
-.~:; . .-. ;"'1
/
,.
~
~
'" n
~
" ~
~
" '" '" ~ -'"
CH.MIT A
PAte RECOMMENDATIoN
l'OIIBXm.z comrr l!B'nIIlI>'rZD p'U'C C%n'8 Pam.J:C:
COIfJ'XGlIJIA"XOIII COM' COJftIIJ:IIlIlrXOI!II C06'1' D· .. asrr!'
1) Ll>VEL :t. $ 55,000 -$10,000 '" $ 45,000 .. upgra4e4,
Upqrade 5 + nets and + 37,600· reori.:ate<l
reorient ¥iDdscreens i $ 82,500*· tellDia oourts ,
4. teUD.ia I
c::::o~ts I
2) LEVEL u, $SS,ooo}$ 99,000 -" $15,tlOO = $ 84,000. .. upqra4ed.,
Upqrade " +4.,000 I + ll....M!l!. ~eori.Dte4-
!:'.torient $1.21,,600 •• te:zmiu COUl':q.
4 tekmis .it.ll nev
courts 5 liqllts
install new
liqllt3
i
3) LEVEL H~' $7S,OOO} $130,000 ... $15,000 I " $115,000 7 tODJ:is
3 New CQurts 1+55 ,000 i +ll&M* CQurts
in CQujune-$152,600**
tio:rt with
LEVEL X
3 New courts $75,OOOl$174,OOO -$15,000 = $159,000 [~is in conjWlc-00-'9,000 + 37 .. 600* courts,
tiOD with I $196,600'** ... with n."
LEVEL II l1qbts
i -.---~~---
.Cost or pool removal ($30,000) and pro rata _hare ot parking lot d ... lopment ($7,600)
a.Additional a~ual co~ts associ_ted with _11 court con~iqurations
maihtenance of parkin9 lo~ $1,800
maintenance ot tennis coQrt. $2~OOO to $3,500
8ta~f costs ~ssoc1.te4 with
requlatinq/scheduling cou~ts $ 400
TO'l'AL $~ to $5,700
C!JFPATC
i
i
I
o
o
r·
~, .
~
l ~ ,
"
~'. t
~;
1
l,
,':
.. ' '
:-~-
,'/
[,:
fi,; ,-
~~;
t:,
'~ ;
1:
~;
~' ,
f
"
.'.
;~ \, ~." :\ ::;; ;:.
Li
. ,
,
, ,
/
I
>" »
<'+
<'+
~
n
~
'" ~
~
<'+
~
"" ~ = w
" _it~!-rJ~!J~'?tmr:illt~~~
CHARrl3
CSI PROPOSAl, FOR MIDTOWN Rf&R"'AUONAI. CENTER <MRC>
PIIOPOBm Z8UlIDL'rII:D C8X ! =rIB PUBLXC
~ C08Y « • 'II7Rl:B~O!I' COlI'!! Baw,·X!'
!
1) PlD\SE l' $20,000\ $82,500 op to $100, 000 I s 30,000 for ::taprov .. eut " opqr .. 4e 4 $-62 r $OD for tot.l pro-poo.l reaoval opera.tion of
tODDis jeet ($50,000 4 ap<;ra4ed
co~ts: up-fOr upgrade o~ $ 2,000 per UIU1:is o011r'ts,
I
qr&4e exist-tennis courts); year fo~ up-pos.ibly "Uh
tug parking operation o! keep and u .. Hghts
" develop courts maiaten&DC4t
n.., parkillq or court. I
lot
I I
I I
2) PRAsE :IX: $ GO,OOOr 76a ,OOO Operatioh aud I $ 30,000 pool Operation &n4 ,
2 new tennis $700,000 .. iat.Dance of r_l lIUliutOD&Dce I
courts; Dew J:'ecreation.l I ot lIRe in-
pool, qyD., facility $760,000 -elu4ing
cal:WlJla I cost; to I tem1izs.. ...ia-
4.evolop m,1nq, qya,
racil1ty cabana aDd
I picnic: are.
I I
C~J'CSI
, \--'
j,>,
", ... ;..,....-i
/,
'1" :t
f
~ t !;
I
I
f
f ." I :}
J ; ,
;'
1,-.
I ' • L
~: ;.
./
!-':
"
"',-
•
[:'
Ii' ."
t11
~~ ;
tH ~;;~
t~
~~
'>·;t;~:,;;'-~,,~(, t.
';-
,
;,
" "
.; ~ UI~~i~~ (~
~;~
.1.;/
t~ •
:\
, .
F
'. .' ,"-
_,~"-.' __ ;:'.. ..... ~:&..:.-=.~~i:~i:ol:ili';~~""""",,,,-~"'~""'''':'':''':''''';'··
AHACHHENT f
ORDINANCE no. ___ ~
ORDIIWICE or mE CC\IlICIL OF THE CITY or PALO Al.TO
l\ME'J-m.1I.'C 'iii&: WOOET FOR-'i'HR FISCAL 'YEAR 1993-94
TO PROVIDE A!~ ADl)ITW~II\r.. APPROPRIATION rOR
C .... PITAL IHPROVEMWT PROJECT NO. 19420.
'CHUCK 'l1iOOPSQ~~ SITJ-; POOL REMOVAV
WHBRBAS, puU\lant to thB provi.sions of sect:lol'\ 12 of Art.icle
II I of the: Ch~('ter of the CHy of Palo Alto~ tho Council on June
21. 1993 did ."<>,,t a vodget (or. (l.cal year 1993-94; and
WH8RFAS~ tllC pool Qn the 51 tc has not been used since the
ChuoK Th~~pson feciljty clos~j in 193(; ~nd
WH£RUS. staff had not pr.cviously recOt1;r.~nded the removal of.
tllo pool ~c.!llJse PQtential proposon:: had indicated it might be
worth l;·eh .... b:Uitating; and
WHRRAAS. since the Req--Jest for Proposal (RFP) has failed to
resol t in p:roPQsaJ.s wh!<:"h inclUde use of the existing pool. stc.(f
roco."mends that due to its detorior.lted condition and potenti~l
liability. it Should ~ temoved and filled.
NOH. 'i'HRR~roRE. the Coundl of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDJtIN' ~8· follows;
~~lL_,l. C(lpit:nl Ifr'Pl'ovement Project No. 19420 "Chuck
Thompson Site Pool Re:movtil" is hereby created. The sum of ThiL·t.y
Thousand oollays ($)0.0001 is nGreby appropriate<! to Capital
lm,proYl'f&ent. Project No. 19420. and the Budget Stabilhation Reserve
19 corre8pond~nglY r~utcd.
:oo:n.OlL __ ~ •
Stabili2atlon Reseiv~
1994.
This transacti.on 'Wi 11 reduce the Budget
froo. $11.202.399 to Sl1.172.399 as of May 16.
s.eCTIQN.1. AS spe:cifie<l in section 2.2IL080(aJ of the Palo
. Alto ,Municipal Code, a two~th1rds '/ote of the City Council Is
r&qulred to adopt this ordinance.
S~Cl'1_02'L_j. The Council of the Cit~· of Palo Alto hereby finds
that t.he ~nactment of this ordinance is not a project under the
CaU!omi.a. Environmentlll Q\1ality }.ct and. therefore~ no environmen
tal impact assessment is necessary.
SKTIllIL':;.
Mtlnicip~l Code.
adoption.
1\5 provided in Section 2.04.375 of the Palo Alto
this ordinance shall o.."O'come effective upon
INTRODUCRD AND PASSED,
•
. ...
" .. '
CD
AYES~
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS,
ABSENT:
A'M'EST, APPROVED:
--------->---~.----------------.---.~. City Clerk H8Iyor
J\ PPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED:
Director of Finance
93-4.43
':.