Planning Commission - public_hearing

On. It's six months. Yeah. Let's do this. Look. Just learn how. Okay.

We'll get started here. Alright. Good afternoon, and welcome to the administrative zoning meeting of 03/11/2026. My name is George Schroeder, and I'm presiding over the hearing today as the zoning administrator. And I'd like to call the meeting of to order at 04:00PM.

I wanna note that today's hearing will operate in a hybrid format. Staff, the applicants, and some community members are in person. However, we will also ask if community members joining us virtually wanna speak on an item at certain points in the meeting. When those opportunities arise, typically during the public comment portion of each agenda item, members of the public wishing to comment may do so by clicking the raise hand feature on Zoom when I announce the item on which you wish to speak. Speakers will be notified at their turn shortly before they're called on to speak.

All speakers, virtual or in person, will have two to three minutes to provide comments with the timing dependent on the total number of speakers for each item. If you are in person and wish to comment on the agenda item today, please also fill out a yellow card for us so we are able to accurately spell your name for the meeting minutes here. So the next portion of our agenda is for oral communications for the public. This time is set aside for persons wishing to address the zoning administrator on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes, and state law prohibits any action on any items which are not on the agenda.

Is there anyone who would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, so not the, pickleball additional use permit that we're about to hear? Okay. Roxanne, is there anyone online? None. Okay. Thank you.

Welcome.

Alright. I will now move on to item three, which is the zoning administrator public hearing. Item 3.1 is 838 Independence Avenue with a request for a conditional use permit to allow a new recreational public slash quasi public use in indoor pickleball court within an an existing industrial building on a 0.22 acre site and a recommendation that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to section one five three zero one, which is existing facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. Brendan Norton is the project planner. Brendan, do you have a staff presentation?

Good

afternoon. My name is Brendan Norton. I am the project planner for this item at 838 Independence Avenue. This project is located on a 0.22 acre site West of Independence Avenue within the 40 General Industrial Zoning District. On 04/04/2025, Bruce Robinson, on behalf of ten zero Start LLC, filed a request for a new indoor pitfall for use within an existing industrial building.

The proposed quasi public use consists of one indoor pickleball court with no increase to existing floor area. A court is available by reservation for public open play and private coaching sessions. Based on the proposed business operation statement, the majority of court hours will be available by reservation for public open play

with

reoccurring time blocks scheduled throughout the week for private coaching sessions. Site parking and max site occupancy is based on a trip generation memo prepared for the project to minimize traffic impacts to and from the sites. During the noticing period, staff received 53 public comments, which have been incorporated into the public records. One public comment received concerns with potential noise impacts from pickleball play, particularly with regards to roll up doors that could be opened. Staff responded to the commentary by identifying standard and project specific conditions of approval, addressing noise, specifically limiting pickleball activities to indoor areas only, and ensuring doors and windows remain closed during business operations.

The remaining 52 comments received expressed support of the project. Staff has conducted review of the application, and staff is recommending approval based on the finance report and conditions of approval and find that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to section fifteen three zero one existing facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA guidelines. That concludes my presentation. The public, project applicant is also available for any questions at this time.

Alright. Thank you, Brandon. It's now the applicant's turn to make a presentation. And the applicant, do you have a presentation or anything you'd like

to say today? Don't. I just wanna say thank you

for all of us. If you can please come to the.

Alright. Just wanted to say thank you for everyone who shows support in in today or from emails online. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Brendan, for helping us get through the process to the spot. I'm just excited to get the court open and have people use it.

Great. And your and your name, sir, for the It's Chris Robinson. Okay. Thank thank you, mister Robinson. Just question from me. Given that we did get the comment about some potential noise concerns with residential nearby, can you just describe your plan for matching noise impacts on-site?

Yeah. Actually, we were we were concerned about the noise inside as well. And so we've already gone ahead and and installed sound deadening material inside. It's usually used in industrial spaces that are running machines, and it's it's almost imperceptible when you're outside of the building. So as long as those doors are closed, I think

we shouldn't have any issues.

Okay. And I understand there's no outdoor operations, and you'll have the the roll doors closed when when pickleball is in play. That's great. Okay. Alright. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. Alright. So we will now open up to the the items of public comments. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item, item 3.1?

David

Yes. And, anyone who gets called, if you can please come to the the podium. And each member of the public has three three minutes to, speak on this. Hi.

My name is David Siegel. I'm a thirty five year resident of the city of Palo Alto. I'm the president of the Palo Alto Pickleball. I appear before you today in strong support of Chris's application for the conditional use permit. Pickleball is not simply a recreational trend. It delivers measurable health, wellness, and social benefits, particularly in combating loneliness and social isolation. That few other activities can match across such a broad demographic. The barrier to accessing those benefits is, at its core, a supply problem. Mountain View currently has just three dedicated courts and six shared courts with tenants serving a population of 87,000 residents. This equates to roughly one court for every 14,000 residents.

To illustrate how underserved Mountain View the Mountain View community is, by comparison, Palo Alto has 15 dedicated ports for 67,000 residents or one per 4,500 residents, and that's not enough to even meet the demand. So we're actively working with the city of Palo Alto to expand that number. The disparity is stark, and its consequences are real. Mountain View residents face excessive wait times that effectively deny them access to a sport with proven public health benefits. I recognize that the Mountain View Pickleball Club is engaged in productive conversations with the city about public court capacity.

However, even under the most optimistic timeline, meaningful expansion is years away wait. In the interim, commercial pickleball facilities have emerged as a practical and effective part of the solution. Over the past five years, about 100 commercial pickleball courts have been opened or have been announced across the South Bay. The data is clear. When organized groups migrate to commercial venues, they free up public courts and first time players precise, for the casual and first time players, precisely the population most at risk of being shut out of these public courts.

I prefer to see expanded public court access where the benefits of the sport are available to everyone regardless of income. But municipalities face realistic constraints, financial, logistical, and political, that the private sector simply does not. And when a private operator like Chris is willing to assume all of the financial risk to develop and operate a facility that genuinely guarantees or genuinely delivers benefit, that is an opportunity that the city should welcome with openings. It is for these reasons, and it looks like you're going to do so anyway, that I respectfully urge you to approve Chris' conditional use. The facility he proposes will benefit not only its direct patrons, but the broader Mountain View community by relieving the pressure on the overtaxed public works.

Thanks for your time. Thanks, sir.

Is

Is there any other members of public here in the room today that would like to speak on the item? Okay. Seeing no others, we'll now move to online if there's any members of the public. If if you are online, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or star nine to raise your hand. And, Roxanne, we have None. We do not have any. Okay. And, seeing that that's all the public comments we have today, I'll now I'll now, go back to the applicant if you have any other comments you have to share. Okay. Seeing that

There's one, George. If I could.

Yes. If you can make sure you fill out a speaker card afterwards, but, yeah, please please go ahead. Okay.

The walk there won't count as

your three

minutes. My

name is Mike Kobeser with Kobeser Two Architects. We're, the architects for Chris on this project and worked with Brandon. I just wanted to there was a condition of approval, couple actually, that I didn't know didn't seem warranted to me. And, one was that there would be a grading plan, on-site grading plan, basically provided. And there really is no change to any payment.

We're adding a VGA walk to the street and doing some striping. And that's basically all that's happening on the site and some landscaping. And the other thing was that there could be a sewer application made as soon as a permit is filed, and the sewer was camera and reviewed as good to go. So those couple items, I felt like, really should be stricken from the conditions. My 2¢.

Okay. Well, let's let's take a look at the the conditions here. Yeah. So the sewer condition will be our public works department. And Yep. If they determine that there's no impacts needed or no further work, then that would

already have.

That would essentially address the the condition. So I'm hesitant to remove any of their their conditions. And then the grading permit, was that, Brandon, do are you

aware of which Grading plans. It's Grading

plans? Yeah.

And, mister Kozlov, you're not aware of which which one this was.

It was down a ways. I think it was right. Last set. It was

I

think it was also public works. Yeah.

'seventy seven,

'eight, something like that. I just know that when we submit, we have to address all these conditions.

Sure. And and it could be similar to the other one you mentioned where it's if it's not even part of the project, then it's really not applicable.

I understand it's sort of a standard.

I I Yeah. Understand. But let's see if we can find it real quick. If not, then we'll still keep it in. But, as far as implementation goes, if there's no grading, then Yeah. No no Okay. Plans would be needed.

Thank

you. The drainage plan was number 48?

48. Yeah.

That that is a condition from our our public works department. We don't have a representative here right now, so I'll I'll keep it in for now. But as I mentioned, when we implement it, then if there's no grading that's occurring, really, no further work is needed. Appreciate that.

Mhmm.

Okay. So I'll now go ahead and close the public hearing, and I will move forward in making a motion to approve item 3.1 based on the findings and conditions posted online, the public comment letters that we received prior to the meeting, and the application materials reviewed by city staff. I find that the use is consistent with the goals and policy of the of the general plan. It serves a recreational need need for residents within the community. The proposed operations are well managed and compatible with the sites and the character of the land uses in the vicinity, and any operational impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

And please note my decision to approve the project is available to the city council within ten calendar days. And this concludes the public hearing today at 04:15PM. And if anyone has any follow-up questions, please contact the project planner, Brandon North. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Bye.