A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Neighbors raise noise and visibility objections as ADR supports 2 Bellagio Road sport court with mitigation requests

March 19, 2024 | Ross, Marin County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Neighbors raise noise and visibility objections as ADR supports 2 Bellagio Road sport court with mitigation requests
The ADR reviewed a proposal at 2 Bellagio Road to construct a new 30-by-60-foot sport court adjacent to an accessory dwelling unit. Staff described the project as a new hard-surface court (concrete or asphalt), an 8-foot-high transparent mesh to retain balls, a 5-foot concrete retaining wall with step lights, and an increase of roughly 1,800 square feet of impervious surface to be mitigated by a 144-square-foot bioretention area.

Landscape designer Brad said the court fits the lot, that pervious finishes were not feasible for a playing surface, and that wall heights would be kept to five feet maximum. He described planting plans using California native species (including Rhamnus and Myrica) intended to screen the court, and suggested integral-color or stucco finishes for the retaining walls. He said lighting would be low, down-shielded wall lights; no pole-mounted sports lights were proposed.

Two neighbors spoke at the meeting. Zara Muir (10 Canyon Road) warned the canyon amplifies reflected sound and said such courts can be very loud; she cited reporting that recreational courts can register about 70 decibels at 100 feet and noted the town’s noise limit of 55 decibels. "The sound will radiate...enthusiastic cries will radiate into the canyon," she said, and raised concern about the potential for future conversion to pickleball. Nancy (resident at 7 Bellagio) said the site is visible from many windows and worried that the hard court and new retaining walls would be disruptive and are already changing the site’s visual character.

ADR members acknowledged neighbors’ concerns but noted the town does not have specific regulations limiting noise generated by private play on sports courts; as long as the proposal meets setback and impervious-surface rules, the town treats a sport court like a patio. Several members expressed support for the project as designed but asked the applicant to explore sound-mitigation options for the uphill retaining wall (sound-absorbing panels or textured geometries) and to use earth-tone finishes so walls blend with the hillside while the proposed plantings mature.

The ADR’s recommendation to forward the application to council included requests for the applicant to consider acoustic mitigation and earth-toned finishes; staff will include those suggestions in the council submittal.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee