Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Attachment E“Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life” 5 0 0 L A G O N D A W A Y , D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6 Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3410 (925) 314-3400 DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE NAME OF PROJECT: Town of Danville Pickleball Court Development PROJECT LOCATION: Osage Station Park 876 Orange Blossom Way Danville, CA 94526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Town is proposing to add up to six new pickleball courts at Osage Park where two pickleball and three tennis courts already exist. LEAD AGENCY: Town of Danville Planning Division 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Contact: Riley Anderson-Barrett, Associate Planner randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov (925)314-3314 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Studies have been conducted to review potential impacts to noise and transportation and have determined that no significant impacts are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are required. DETERMINATION: Based upon the provided studies, no mitigation measures were identified and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be associated with the subject project. Attachment E November 20, 2023 Page 2 The Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Department, Town of Danville. Copies of the Initial Study may be obtained at the Town offices located at 500 La Gonda Way, Danville, California 94526 or on our website at https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle- ball. ATTEST: Riley Anderson-Barrett Associate Planner “Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life” 5 0 0 L A G O N D A W A Y , D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6 Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Project Title: Town of Danville Pickleball Court Development Project Location /APN: 876 Orange Blossom Way / 207-120-002 Project Description: The Town is proposing to add up to six new pickleball courts at Osage Station Park where two courts currently exist. Applicant/Owner: Town of Danville Recreation, Arts & Community Services 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Contact: Henry Perezalonso, Director of Recreation, Arts and Community Services HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov (925) 314-3354 Lead Agency: Town of Danville Planning Division 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Contact: Riley Anderson-Barrett, Associate Planner randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov (925) 314-3314 Copies of Initial Study and Negative Declaration: Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Significance that was prepared for the project are available at the Town of Danville Town Offices located at 500 La Gonda Way. Review Period: November 21, 2023 to December 13, 2023 Public Hearing: Wednesday, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. at the Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING, A PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Commission Meeting Wednesday, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. | Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street Project: Proposed Addition of Pickleball Courts Location: Osage Station Park Description: The Town previously converted one tennis court at Osage Station Park into two pickleball courts. At their July 13, 2022, meeting, the Commission identified Osage Station Park as the location to potentially add additional pickleball courts. At their November 9, 2022, meeting, the Commission discussed adding up to six additional pickleball courts, resulting in a total of eight courts. Further discussion of adding new courts will take place at the December 13, 2023, meeting. Environmental Review: The project has been found to have no significant environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, a Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for this project. Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Significance that were prepared for the project are available at the Town of Danville Town Offices located at 500 La Gonda Way and on the Town Talks website which may be accessed by scanning the QR code below. The review period for a proposed Negative Declaration shall not be less than 20 days. Staff Contact: Henry Perezalonso, Director of Recreation, Arts and Community Services Phone: (925) 314-3454 Email: HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov All interested persons are encouraged to attend and be heard at the scheduled public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, at the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front Street, Danville, CA.   NOTE: If you challenge the Town’s decision on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior, to the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Town of Danville will provide special assistance for disabled citizens.  If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (925) 314-3388.  Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Significance that were prepared for the project are available at the Town of Danville Town Offices located at 500 La Gonda Way or on our Town Talks website which may be accessed by scanning the QR code below. Town of Danville Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Osage Park Pickleball Courts 2. Lead agency name and address: Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 3. Contact person and phone number: Riley Anderson-Barrett, (925) 314-3314 4. Project location: Osage Station Park 876 Orange Blossom Way Danville, CA 94526 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 6. Zoning: A-2; General Agricultural District 7. General Plan designation: Open Space; Parks and Recreation 8. Description of project: The Town is proposing to add up to six pickleball courts at Osage Park where two pickle ball and three tennis courts already exist. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Single-family residences are located to the south and west and additional park area to the north and east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District • Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District • Contra Costa County Flood Control District 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.  I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.  I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agriculture / Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology / Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology / Water Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources    Noise Recreation Utilities / Service Systems    Population / Housing Transportation Wildfire    Public Services Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance 3 standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 11/20/2023 Signature Date Riley Anderson-Barrett Town of Danville Printed Name For Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?    X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?    X c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?   X  d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?   X  II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?    X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?    X 5 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?       X X III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?   X  b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?   X  c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?   X  d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?   X  IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified   X  6 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?   X  c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?   X  d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?    X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?    X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?    X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: 7 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?    X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?   X  c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY: Would the project:   X  a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?   X  b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?   X  VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.    X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?   X  8 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?   X  iv) Landslides?    X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?   X  c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?   X  d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?     X   X f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?   X  VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?   X  b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of   X  9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?   X  b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?    X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?   X  d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?    X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?    X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency    X 10 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?    X X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?    X b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?    X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;   X  ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;   X  ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;   X  iv) impede or redirect flood flows?   X  d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche 11 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?    X e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?    X XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?    X b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?    X XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?    X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?    X XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X    b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?   X  12 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?    X XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?   X  b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?    X XV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?   X  Police protection?   X  13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Schools?   X  Parks?   X  Other public facilities?   X  XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?   X  b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?   X  XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? X    b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?   X  c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?    X d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    X 14 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or   X  ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.   X  XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?    X 15 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?   X  c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?    X d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?   X  e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?   X  XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?    X c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water    X 16 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?    X XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?   X  b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)    X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?    X 17 EXPLANATIONS: I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The subject project is not within a Town designated scenic hillside or major ridgeline and there are no scenic vistas on-site or surrounding the project area. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The site is not within view of a state scenic highway. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?? Less than Significant Impact. The project would allow the development of up to six new pickleball courts in an area of Osage Park which currently contains two pickleball courts and three tennis courts. The six additional courts will not degrade the visual character of the park or the surrounding neighborhood or conflict with zoning requirements. The proposed use is consistent with the existing use and surrounding residential properties. General Plan and zoning designation allow for recreational use. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The project may result in additional light sources typical of a recreational area with the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods being less than significant. More substantial lighting, such as sports filed lighting, is not allowed at Osage park. A standard condition of approval for such a development would require exterior lighting to be shielded downward to avoid glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The parcel is not classified as prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site. The site has a land use of Open Space, Parks and Recreation and a zoning designation of General Agricultural District. It is not being used for agricultural uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract. 18 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site and will not result in the rezoning of forest land. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The site is zoned for agricultural use and currently contains a park with recreational fields and courts. The proposed development would not result in the conversion of any farmland to a non-agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site. The proposed project would not increase regional population growth or cause changes in vehicular traffic that would affect the implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site, and recreational uses are anticipated. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within a park, where sensitive receptors may be located. Pollutant levels would temporarily be increased due to equipment associated with the construction. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site, and recreational use is anticipated. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development is the expansion of an existing recreational area. This type of development will not result in the creation of objectionable odors which are not typical for the area. 19 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The property consists of an existing park. No trees are proposed for removal. The project is not projected to impact special-status species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impacts. No riparian or other sensitive communities have been identified on-site. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impacts. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. There are no protected wetlands located on the property. All stormwater/surface runoff should be directed into the Town’s storm drain system. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. All stormwater/surface runoff should be directed into the Town’s storm drain system. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impacts. No trees are proposed for removal as part of construction of the project. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan associated with this property. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: 20 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. The site and existing structures on site do not meet criteria as a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. There has been no identification of the existence, or probable likelihood, of an archaeological resource on this site. Standard Conditions of Approval require that, in the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during any construction or pre-construction activities on the site, all land alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted, the Town Planning Division notified, and a professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation measures if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading or site development, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the applicant shall notify the county coroner and comply with all state law requirements, including Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code section 5097.98, to ensure proper disposition of the human remains or suspected human remains, including those identified to be Native American remains. VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would result in short- term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. Energy use would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavyduty equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Project construction would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). CalGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that apply to construction to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Project construction would not involve wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Project operation would result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips, landscaping equipment, and electricity to 21 power court lights. Project energy consumed would represent a negligible change compared to existing conditions and would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impacts. Energy use during project construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary and construction equipment used would be typical of other construction projects in the region. Project construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and any impacts would be less than significant. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The site is not located near active faults. Given the project’s requirement to comply with California Building Code related to seismic activity, this impact is considered less than significant requirement to comply with California Building Code related to seismic activity, this impact is considered less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a State of California Liquefaction Zone. The project would not substantially alter existing hazards related to seismic events. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Given the project’s requirement to comply with California Building Code related to seismic activity, this impact is considered less than significant. iv) Landslides? No Impact. No evidence of landslide characteristics have been observed on the site or in the area in the past. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. There is potential for some soil erosion caused by both wind and water during the construction phase of the project. Compliance with standard Town practices regarding erosion prevention makes this impact less than significant. 22 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The site is nearly flat and not located within or near a State of California Liquefaction Zone or Earthquake Fault Zone. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. There will be no risk of collapse of unstable structures because the project is primarily hardscaping and does not propose habitable structures. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. There is no impact because the project would not include the use or installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no anticipated paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the property. In the event that an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of project construction, it is the responsibility of any worker who observes fossils within the project site to stop work within 100 feet of the find and notify a qualified professional paleontologist who shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance and if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work in the area of the discovery will resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given by the Town to resume construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring shall be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository. The paleontologist shall submit a report to the Town to document compliance within 30 days of its completion. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would allow the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within an existing park located in a residential neighborhood. The new courts may cause an increase in visitation which will not substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, greenhouse gas levels would temporarily be increased due to equipment associated with the construction. The project would use existing roads, making it consistent with the Town of Danville’s 2030 General Plan Policy 34.02. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. The 23 project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within a park within a residential area. The proposed project involves the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within a park where pickleball and tennis courts already exist. Hazardous materials which are not consistent with typical recreational and residential areas are not expected to be associated with this development. Project construction may temporarily increase the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, including diesel fuel, oil, solvents, and other similar construction-related hazardous materials which will be subject to all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation Act, California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The proposed project is within a park within a residential area. The proposed project involves the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within a park where pickleball and tennis courts already exist. Hazardous materials which are not consistent with typical recreational and residential areas are not expected to be associated with this development. Ongoing and proposed uses at the park would not involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within a park in a residential neighborhood. Hazardous materials which are not consistent with typical recreational and residential areas are not expected to be associated with this development. The proposed project is located directly west of Charlotte Wood Middle School. No evidence of existing underground storage tanks was observed. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. This site is not known to be included on any list of hazardous materials sites. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The subject site is not within an airport zone or part of any airport plan. 24 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. There is not a specific emergency response plan for this area. The project will meet all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed project is located within a park within a residential area. The project will meet all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District including fire abatement measures. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. Compliance with the Town’s stormwater run-off requirements will ensure no water quality standards are violated. The integrated management practices (IMPs) proposed for the treatment areas will be consistent with the recommendations of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. The proposed project will conform to the Town’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-06) and all applicable construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the site. A project Operations Maintenance Plan and Agreement will also be developed and recorded for this site. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project would be served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District for water and no new wells would be created. The project would introduce new impervious surfaces for a new pickleball court. This would impede groundwater recharge within the footprint of impervious surfaces. Considering the lack of water use by the project, the project’s small footprint, and that surrounding pervious areas would allow water to infiltrate into the soil, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, and these impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially increase erosion or siltation. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which 25 would result in flooding on- or offsite; Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially increase surface runoff and flooding. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially increase surface runoff and flooding. The additional run-off will not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities. The project will be required to comply with all stormwater quality requirements. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially alter flood flows. The additional run-off will not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities. The project will be required to comply with all stormwater quality requirements. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The site is not near any large body of water, so the risk of damage due to a seiche, tsunami or mudslide is very low. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact. No structures will be built within the 100-year flood plain, as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are no dams or levees in the vicinity of the site. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project? a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project is located within an existing park in a residential neighborhood, consistent with existing surrounding developments. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project is located within an existing park in a residential neighborhood, consistent with existing surrounding developments. The proposed project complies with existing general plan zoning and ordinances. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no known mineral 26 resources on this site. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources on the site. XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within an existing park within a residential development. The park currently hosts two pickleball courts and three tennis courts. Noise levels would temporarily be increased due to noise associated with the construction of the courts. The noise impact will be less than significant given required standard conditions of approval which define and limit hours of construction. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding potential noise impacts generated by the impact of the pickleball against the face of the pickleball. In order to study this potential impact, a noise study was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. The study concluded that “the results of the modeling indicate that project operational recreational noise levels for all eight pickleball courts operating simultaneously would result in a noise level of up to 53 L dn at the closest residential property line to the south and up to 55 dn at the closest residential property line to the west. This would be below the threshold of 60 dn per the Town of Danville General Plan Policy 27.09. Therefore, project operational noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. d) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibrations and noise levels would temporarily be increased due to the construction of the project but would not reach significant levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The subject site is not located within an area including an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension 27 of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not propose any new homes. No population growth influenced by the additional courts is anticipated. The project was anticipated as part of the Town’s 2030 General Plan. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The development will not displace any housing in the area. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? Less than Significant Impact. The project will be served by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, as indicated in correspondence with the District. The project will be designed to meet all of the requirements of the District. ii) Police Protection? Less than Significant Impact. The project will be served by the Danville Police Department, which is on contract from the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department. iii) Schools? Less than Significant Impact. No new residences are proposed. It is unlikely that the new courts will encourage population increase to impact school attendance within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. iv) Parks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed pickleball courts may have an increase in park facility use. v) Other Public Facilities? Less than Significant. No other public facilities have been identified in which this project would result in a significant adverse negative impact. XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed pickleball courts may cause an increase in the use of Osage Park but will not be significant enough to cause substantial physical deterioration. There are two existing pickleball courts and three tennis courts which have not indicated that additional courts will accelerate deterioration. 28 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The project will expand the existing pickleball area with the addition of up to six new courts but will not expand outside of Osage Station Park’s boundaries. The construction will not have a significant adverse physical effect on the environment. XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The area’s streets, land use planning and zoning were planned and in place to accommodate recreational uses on this site. Traffic will increase by the rate associated with six new pickleball courts. In order to study the potential traffic and parking impacts related to the six additional pickleball courts, a Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Kimley – Horn and Associates, Inc. The study concluded that “the available parking supply for all three parking lots of 318 parking spaces is sufficient to meet the peak parking demands for Scenario #1 and #2 for a typical weekday and Saturday. The study also found that the project “would result in volumes less than the capacity threshold for all segments under Scenarios #1 and #2. Therefore, the project would not generate any deficiencies on the nearby roadway segments for both scenarios and any potential impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate criteria to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The Transportation Division conducted a traffic study which indicated that any additional traffic due to the addition of six new pickleball courts will be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project does not propose any alterations or additions to transportation corridors, will meet all of the Town’s design standards, and is not proposing any potentially hazardous design features. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project is an addition to existing parks facilities and will have no impact on emergency access. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: 29 a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact. Osage Station Park is not recorded as a cultural resource. In the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during any construction or pre construction activities on the site, all land alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted, the Town Planning Division notified, and a professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. ii) ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less than Significant Impact. Osage Station Park is not recorded as a cultural resource. In the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during any construction or pre construction activities on the site, all land alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted, the Town Planning Division notified, and a professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or 30 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The development is within the Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District boundaries and will be served by the District. The project would include renovations to a public park, which would not include the construction of buildings or uses that would require relocation, new, or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication services. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?? Less than Significant Impact. The project is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Construction would only require minimal amounts of water and will not cause for an increase in water use during the ongoing operation and maintenance of the new courts. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. The development is within the Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District boundaries, and will be served by the District. Long-term project operation would not generate substantial solid waste beyond what is already generated by park users but may result in minimal additional wastewater attributed to people using the park’s public restrooms. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The area’s solid waste provider will continue to serve the project location. Project construction would generate waste, resulting in the need for solid waste disposal. Long-term project operation would not generate substantial solid waste beyond what is already generated by park users but may result in minimal additional wastewater attributed to people using the park’s public restrooms. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. The development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes regarding solid waste. XX. WILDFIRE: Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located within any identified very high fire severity zones and will not impact emergency plans. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the 31 uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The project site is not located within any identified very high fire severity zones and does not have a sloping landscape or prevailing winds. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project does not propose the addition of any infrastructure which may exacerbate fire risks. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The project site is primarily flat and will not expose people to flooding, landslides due to run off and drainage changes. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that the project will degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a wildlife species, or reduce the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project has no potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would include improvements to an existing park. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15 th Street , Suite 303 Oakland , California 94612 510 834 4455 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s September 8, 2023 Project No. 23-14340 Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville (925) 314-3454 Via email: hperezalonso@danville.ca.gov Subject: Noise Study for the Osage Park Pickleball Project, Danville, California Dear Mr. Perezalonso: This technical letter report summarizes the results for the Osage Park pickleball noise study for the proposed project located at Osage Park in the Town of Danville. The noise study addresses potential noise impacts from implementation of the proposed project on nearby residences. This report was prepared by Josh Carman, INCE-USA. Mr. Carman is a Noise Director with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and has over 20 years of experience in the field of acoustics and environmental noise and has participated in the environmental review and monitoring process for a wide variety of projects in California, Washington, Nevada, and New York. Mr. Carman prepares noise and vibration assessments for environmental impact studies and technical studies in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using federal, state, and local guidelines and methodology. Mr. Carman is a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Project Understanding The project would involve expansion of the existing pickleball courts, from two to up to eight courts, along with bench seating near the courts based on the November 9, 2022, Town staff report. Park operational hours of dawn to dusk seven days a week would remain. For the purposes of this analysis and based on information from the Town, the pickleball courts operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends depending on the season. The closest residences are immediately south of the project site on El Capitan Drive and additional residences are located to the west on Orange Blossom Way. Noise Overview Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Page 2 with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease. Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud. Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line-of sight-will provide at least 5 dBA reduction in noise level at the receiver. The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day as it can disrupt sleep. Regulatory Framework Town of Danville General Plan The Town of Danville General Plan contains land use compatibility categories for community noise exposure, noise contour maps, and policies related to noise. The following goal and policy are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 27 Protect existing and future residents of Danville from hazards and nuisance associated with excessive levels of noise by maintaining or reducing noise intrusion levels in all areas of the Town to acceptable levels. Policy 27.09 Generally maintain exterior noise levels below 60 Ldn in areas where outdoor use is a major consideration, such as in residential backyards. Where the Town determines that this level cannot be achieved after reasonable mitigation has Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Page 3 been applied, higher standards may be permitted at the discretion of the Town Council. In such cases, indoor noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Town of Danville Municipal Code The Town of Danville Municipal Code does not have any exterior noise standards. However, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make a loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of a neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. Ambient Noise Measurements To characterize ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project, five short-term, 15-minute noise level measurements were conducted on Saturday, July 8, 2023 and repeated on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. Short-term noise measurement results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Short-term noise measurement (ST)-1 was conducted at the north end of the parking lot to capture noise generated from surrounding park activity. ST-2 was conducted near the parking lot to capture noise levels at the backyard of 882 Orange Blossom Way. ST-3 was conducted approximately 50 feet east of the existing pickleball courts while two games were underway on both monitoring days. ST-4 was conducted at the southern boundary of Osage Park to capture noise levels at the backyard of 535 El Capitan Drive. ST-5 was conducted near the west end of the basketball courts at Charlotte Wood Middle School. The sound level meter was equipped with a windscreen during measurements. The sound level meter used for noise monitoring (Extech 407780A) satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for Type 2 instrumentation. The sound level meter was set to “slow” response and “A” weighting (dBA). The meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring period. All measurements were at least five feet above the ground and away from reflective surfaces. Table 1 summarizes the results of the noise measurements on a typical weekend day and Table 2 summarizes the noise measurements taken during the week. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the short-term noise measurements taken near the existing pickleball courts. Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Page 4 Table 1 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results – Saturday, July 8, 2023 Measurement Location Sample Times Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) ST-1 Just north of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:51 – 9:06 a.m. 53.4 50.0 61.0 ST-2 Middle of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 9:10 – 9:25 a.m. 53.3 49.7 60.4 ST-3a Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 8:30 – 8:45 a.m. 58.0 55.4 61.9 ST-3b Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 10:03 – 10:18 a.m. 58.2 53.9 67.7 ST-4 Osage Park southern boundary near single- family residence, south of Pickleball courts. 9:27 – 9:42 a.m. 54.2 50.7 62.4 ST-5 Just west of the basketball courts at the Charlotte Wood Middle School. 9:46 – 10:01 a.m. 57.7 54.1 69.9 Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Page 5 Table 2 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results – Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Measurement Location Sample Times Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) ST-1 Just north of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:05 – 8:20 a.m. 50.2 45.0 64.9 ST-2 Middle of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:24 – 8:39 a.m. 50.3 46.7 64.6 ST-3 Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 9:13 – 9:28 a.m. 53.2 44.3 66.0 ST-4 Osage Park southern boundary near single- family residence, south of Pickleball courts. 8:53 – 9:08 a.m. 45.7 41.2 55.0 ST-5 Just west of the basketball courts at the Charlotte Wood Middle School. 9:30 – 9:45 a.m. 47.1 42.1 58.7 Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Page 6 Figure 1 Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Page 7 Results A property of sound is that it attenuates, or drops off, as the distance from the noise source increases. For a point source, such as pickleball courts, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source (Caltrans 2013). The project would generate noise at the nearby sensitive receptors and the attenuation rate is applied to estimate noise levels at the sensitive receptors. Shielding effects from buildings, terrain, or other barriers are conservatively not factored into the attenuation calculations for the purposes of this analysis. For the purposes of this analysis and based on information from the Town, the pickleball courts operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Recreational noise would continue to consist of noise from tennis and/or pickleball being played as under existing conditions, including noise from the ball hitting a racquet, noise from the ball bouncing off the court, noise from the ball hitting the chain link fence, and noise from players and spectators talking. As shown in Table 1, during measurement ST-3 a single game of pickleball generates noise levels of up to 58.2 dBA Leq at a distance of approximately 50 feet. A worst-case scenario was modeled assuming that all pickleball courts and tennis courts were being used simultaneously. The estimated hourly Leq value at the property line is then converted to an Ldn value assuming a worst-case scenario of all courts in operation between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Attachment A includes the noise calculations. The results of modeling indicate that project operational recreational noise levels for all eight pickleball operating simultaneously would result in a noise level of up to 53 Ldn at the closest residential property line to the south and up to 55 Ldn at the closest residential property line to the west. This would be below the threshold of 60 Ldn per Town of Danville General Plan Policy 27.09. Therefore, project operational noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. * * * This concludes our operational noise impact assessment of the proposed project. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about this environmental noise impact assessment or its findings. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Josh Carman, INCE-USA Director Attachment A Supporting Noise Information Residences South L1 (dBA)Distance (ft)L2 (dBA)Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 58.2 50 48.7 150 Pickleball Court 2 58.2 50 48.1 160 Pickleball Court 3 58.2 50 46.4 195 Pickleball Court 4 58.2 50 45.9 205 Pickleball Court 5 58.2 50 43.9 260 Pickleball Court 6 58.2 50 43.7 265 Pickleball Court 7 58.2 50 42.5 305 Pickleball Court 8 58.2 50 42.1 320 Tennis Court 1 58.2 50 47.3 175 Tennis Court 2 58.2 50 47.6 170 Tennis Court 3 58.2 50 42.9 290 Tennis Court 4 58.2 50 43.1 285 Combined Noise Level 54.8 Residences West L1 (dBA)Distance (ft)L2 (dBA)Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 58.2 50 50.2 125 Pickleball Court 2 58.2 50 48.7 150 Pickleball Court 3 58.2 50 49.3 140 Pickleball Court 4 58.2 50 47.8 165 Pickleball Court 5 58.2 50 48.7 150 Pickleball Court 6 58.2 50 47.8 165 Pickleball Court 7 58.2 50 42.4 310 Pickleball Court 8 58.2 50 41.8 330 Tennis Court 1 58.2 50 45.9 205 Tennis Court 2 58.2 50 44.2 250 Tennis Court 3 58.2 50 45.9 205 Tennis Court 4 58.2 50 44.0 255 Combined Noise Level 56.9 Danville Pickleball - South Residences Day Date Time Duration Leq Energy Leq (hr)Energy+Penalty Ldn All 53 X XX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX 10:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 11:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 12:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 13:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 14:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 15:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 16:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 17:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 18:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 19:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 1000000 20:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 1000000 21:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 3.16227766 22:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 23:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 00:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 01:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 02:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 03:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 04:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 05:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 06:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 07:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 08:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 09:00:00 01:00:00.0 55.0 316227.8 55 316227.766 Danville Pickleball - West Residences Day Date Time Duration Leq Energy Leq (hr)Energy+Penalty Ldn All 55 X XX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX 10:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 11:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 12:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 13:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 14:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 15:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 16:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 17:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 18:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 19:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 1584893.192 20:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 1584893.192 21:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 3.16227766 22:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 23:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 00:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 01:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 02:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 03:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 04:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 05:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 06:00:00 01:00:00.0 0.0 1 0 10 07:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 08:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 09:00:00 01:00:00.0 57.0 501187.2 57 501187.2336 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 MEMORANDUM To:Mr. Andrew Dillard Transportation Manager Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 From:Ben Huie, P.E. Connie Leung, P.E Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date:November 3, 2023 Subject: Danville Pickleball Courts Transportation Impact Analysis - Draft Memorandum INTRODUCTION The Danville Pickleball Courts project (“Project”) proposes to construct additional pickleball courts at the Osage Station Park in Danville, CA. The existing site, located at 876 Orange Blossom Way, currently has three (3) tennis courts and two (2) pickleball courts on the southwest corner of Osage Station Park. The Project is proposing the following two scenarios to increase the number of pickleball courts: · Scenario #1 – 3 tennis courts and 6 pickleball courts (4 additional pickleball courts) · Scenario #2 – 3 tennis courts and 8 pickleball courts (6 additional pickleball courts) The primary parking lot for visitors is the Osage Station Park South parking lot but visitors may also park at the Osage Station Park North parking lot and the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. The Town of Danville (Town) has requested that Kimley-Horn prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project to determine potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study also includes a roadway capacity analysis for the four roadway segments shown below, as well as a parking occupancy and demand analysis to determine the effects of the proposed project. This memorandum discusses the methodology, analysis, and results of the transportation analysis. · Roadway Analysis Segments: o Orange Blossom Way (south of Osage Station Park South Parking Lot Entry) o Orange Blossom Way (north of Osage Station Park South Parking Lot Entry) o Osage Station Park Driveway (east of Orange Blossom Way) o El Capitan Drive (west of Orange Blossom Way) Page 2 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 METHODOLOGY Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) With the passage of SB 743, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under the CEQA. SB 743 is part of a long-standing policy effort by the California legislature to improve California’s sustainability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through denser infill development, a reduction in single occupancy vehicles, improved mass transit, and other actions. Recognizing that the prior environmental-based transportation analysis techniques were, at times, encouraging development that is inconsistent with this vision, the legislature took the extraordinary step to change the basis of environmental analysis for transportation impacts from Level of Service (LOS) to VMT. VMT is understood to be a good proxy for evaluating air quality and other transportation related impacts that the State is actively trying to address. While the use of VMT to determine significant transportation impacts has only been considered recently, it is not a new performance metric and has long been used as a basis for transportation system evaluations and as an important metric for evaluating the performance of Travel Demand Models. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 identifies VMT as the most appropriate criteria to evaluate a Project’s transportation impacts. While the Town of Danville has not adopted any CEQA thresholds related to VMT, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) established VMT as the methodology for evaluating transportation impacts and identified guidelines for evaluating VMT impacts in June 2020. CCTA identifies screening criteria for projects that are expected to have a less than significant VMT impact. The screening criteria includes the following: · Projects of 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. · Public facilities (e.g., emergency services, passive parks (low-intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. To determine whether a significant impact occurs as a result of implementing the Project, a screening analysis was conducted to compare the effects of the addition of the Project against the above screening criteria. Roadway Segments Roadway segments were analyzed based on volumes and compared against roadway capacities, consistent with the 2030 Town of Danville General Plan1 roadway capacity thresholds. Capacities were determined based on roadway classification as defined in the Mobility Chapter of the Town of Danville General Plan. 1 The Town of Danville 2030 General Plan, Chapter 4 Mobility,Town of Danville, March 19, 2013. Page 3 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 PARKING ANALYSIS A parking analysis was conducted to determine if adequate off-street parking is provided at the three parking lots available for visitors to meet the additional parking demand generated by the proposed pickleball project. Peak parking demand for the proposed project was added to existing parking occupancy data to determine the peak parking demand under existing plus project conditions for Scenarios #1 and #2. The peak parking demand under existing plus project conditions were then compared to the available parking within the three parking lots to determine whether sufficient parking is provided. Existing Parking Occupancy A figure of the three parking lot locations, in relation to the proposed pickleball courts, are shown in Figure 1. Based on Google aerial images, the total existing parking supply is 318 parking spaces, with 64 available parking spaces in the Osage Station Park South parking lot, 132 available parking spaces in the Osage Station Park North parking lot, and 122 available parking spaces in the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. Existing parking occupancy data was provided by the Town for the three parking lots which were collected from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 and Saturday, June 3, 2023 in 15-minute increments. The maximum 15-minute parking occupancies were determined for each hour to reduce the data to hourly parking occupancies and are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 for a weekday and Saturday, respectively. Existing parking occupancy data is provided in Attachment A. It should be noted that existing parking occupancies were determined by adding and subtracting the inbound and outbound volumes at the parking lot driveways to the baseline parking occupancy count collected at the start of the survey. This may explain why the existing parking occupancies exceed 100 percent for certain hours. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the peak parking occupancy for all three parking lots occurs at 6:00 PM with 273 parking spaces occupied (86 percent occupancy) on a weekday and at 10:00 AM with 240 parking spaces occupied (75 percent occupancy) on a Saturday. During the weekday peak parking occupancy, the Osage Station North and Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lots are fully occupied while the Osage Station South still has available parking spaces (38 percent occupied). During the Saturday peak parking occupancy, the Osage Station South and North parking lots are almost fully occupied while the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot still has available parking spaces (43 percent occupied). Page 4 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Figure 1 – Parking Lot Locations Table 1 – Existing Parking Occupancy (Weekday) Parking Lot:Osage Station South Osage Station North Charlotte Wood Middle School Total Total Available Spaces:64 Percent Occupied 132 Percent Occupied 122 Percent Occupied 318 Percent Occupied 7:00 AM 11 17%4 3%18 15%33 10% 8:00 AM 12 19%6 5%54 44%72 23% 9:00 AM 21 33%16 12%74 61%111 35% 10:00 AM 23 36%38 29%66 54%127 40% 11:00 AM 23 36%43 33%64 52%130 41% 12:00 PM 17 27%57 43%64 52%138 43% 1:00 PM 13 20%55 42%65 53%133 42% 2:00 PM 23 36%44 33%117 96%184 58% 3:00 PM 7 11%22 17%61 50%90 28% 4:00 PM 18 28%108 82%60 49%186 58% 5:00 PM 19 30%135 102%110 90%264 83% 6:00 PM 24 38%121 92%128 105%273 86% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Parking occupancies exceeding 100 percent are shown in red. Osage Station Park Osage Station North Parking Lot Osage Station South Parking Lot Charlotte Wood Middle School Parking Lot Proposed Pickleball Project Page 5 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 2 – Existing Parking Occupancy (Saturday) Parking Lot:Osage Station South Osage Station North Charlotte Wood Middle School Total Total Available Spaces:64 Percent Occupied 132 Percent Occupied 122 Percent Occupied 318 Percent Occupied 7:00 AM 17 27%47 36%19 16%83 26% 8:00 AM 41 64%95 72%43 35%179 56% 9:00 AM 62 97%113 86%45 37%220 69% 10:00 AM 61 95%126 95%53 43%240 75% 11:00 AM 41 64%123 93%52 43%216 68% 12:00 PM 37 58%124 94%51 42%212 67% 1:00 PM 50 78%127 96%49 40%226 71% 2:00 PM 45 70%87 66%16 13%148 47% 3:00 PM 21 33%93 70%2 2%116 36% 4:00 PM 18 28%83 63%1 1%102 32% 5:00 PM 14 22%56 42%1 1%71 22% 6:00 PM 12 19%35 27%3 2%50 16% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Proposed Parking Demand The ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition2, was used to determine the peak parking demand for the proposed project. A land use for pickleball courts is not provided in the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Therefore, parking generation rates for ITE land use code 490 (Tennis Court) were used instead. The average rate for ITE land use code 490 is 2.67 parking spaces per tennis court for a Saturday (no weekday data is provided). However, pickleball is typically a doubles game with four people on each court whereas tennis is typically a singles game with two people on each court. Therefore, an adjustment factor of 1.5 was applied to the average parking rate to achieve an adjusted rate of 4 parking spaces per pickleball court. Assuming a doubles game with four players on each court, this results in one parking space per player. Applying the adjusted parking rate to the proposed pickleball courts results in an additional peak parking demand of 16 parking spaces and 24 parking spaces for Scenario #1 (four additional courts) and Scenario #2 (six additional courts), respectively. To determine the hourly parking demand throughout a typical weekday and Saturday, time of day percent distributions were derived from the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Time of day distributions are not available for ITE land use code 490 (Tennis Court), therefore data for ITE land use code 491 (Racquet/Tennis Club) was used instead. The hourly parking demand for a typical weekday and Saturday were then added to the existing parking occupancy as shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. 2 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., 2019. Page 6 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 3 – Proposed Parking Demand (Weekday) Parking Lot:Total Existing Parking Occupancy Scenario #1 Parking Demand Scenario #2 Parking Demand Total Available Spaces: 318 Percent Occupied Proposed Existing Plus Proposed Percent Occupied Proposed Existing Plus Proposed Percent Occupied 7:00 AM 33 10%9 42 13%14 47 15% 8:00 AM 72 23%9 81 25%14 86 27% 9:00 AM 111 35%9 120 38%14 125 39% 10:00 AM 127 40%9 136 43%14 141 44% 11:00 AM 130 41%10 140 44%15 145 46% 12:00 PM 138 43%11 149 47%17 155 49% 1:00 PM 133 42%14 147 46%21 154 48% 2:00 PM 184 58%15 199 63%23 207 65% 3:00 PM 90 28%16 106 33%24 114 36% 4:00 PM 186 58%16 202 64%24 210 66% 5:00 PM 264 83%14 278 87%21 285 90% 6:00 PM 273 86%10 283 89%16 289 91% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Percent distributions are not provided for 7:00 AM, 8:00 AM, and 9:00 AM. Therefore, the percent distribution for the adjacent time period of 10:00 AM was used instead. Table 4 – Proposed Parking Demand (Saturday) Parking Lot:Total Existing Parking Occupancy Scenario #1 Parking Demand Scenario #2 Parking Demand Total Available Spaces: 318 Percent Occupied Proposed Existing Plus Proposed Percent Occupied Proposed Existing Plus Proposed Percent Occupied 7:00 AM 83 26%16 99 31%24 107 34% 8:00 AM 179 56%16 195 61%24 203 64% 9:00 AM 220 69%16 236 74%24 244 77% 10:00 AM 240 75%13 253 80%20 260 82% 11:00 AM 216 68%14 230 72%21 237 75% 12:00 PM 212 67%15 227 71%23 235 74% 1:00 PM 226 71%13 239 75%20 246 77% 2:00 PM 148 47%14 162 51%21 169 53% 3:00 PM 116 36%12 128 40%19 135 42% 4:00 PM 102 32%10 112 35%16 118 37% 5:00 PM 71 22%12 83 26%18 89 28% 6:00 PM 50 16%12 62 19%18 68 21% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Percent distributions are not provided for 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Therefore, the percent distributions for the adjacent time periods of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM were used instead. Page 7 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 As shown in Tables 3 and 4 for Scenario #1, the existing plus proposed parking demand with the additional four (4) pickleball courts results in a peak parking demand of 283 parking spaces (89 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and 253 parking spaces (80 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. For Scenario #2, the existing plus proposed parking demand with the additional six (6) pickleball courts results in a peak parking demand of 289 parking spaces (91 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and 260 parking spaces (82 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. Therefore, the existing parking supply for all three parking lots is sufficient to meet the proposed parking demand for the additional pickleball courts under Scenarios #1 and #2. As mentioned previously, the existing weekday parking occupancies for the Osage Station South parking lot is not yet fully occupied with a peak parking occupancy of 24 parking spaces out of 64 available parking spaces. This results in 40 available parking spaces and is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for Scenario #1 (16 parking spaces) and Scenario #2 (24 parking spaces). Therefore, during the weekday peak, visitors for the pickleball courts may use the nearby Osage Station South parking lot. During Saturdays, the existing parking occupancies for the Osage Station South and North parking lots are almost fully occupied and does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak parking demand for Scenarios #1 and #2. However, the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot is not yet fully occupied with a peak parking occupancy of 53 parking spaces out of 122 available parking spaces. This results in 69 available parking spaces and is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for Scenario #1 (16 parking spaces) and Scenario #2 (24 parking spaces). Therefore, during the Saturday peak, visitors for the pickleball courts may use the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. ROADWAY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Roadway analysis was evaluated at each of the four (4) study roadway segments using the methodology consistent with the 2030 Town of Danville General Plan roadway capacity thresholds. Daily roadway volumes were analyzed rather than peak hour volumes since roadway capacities provided in the general plan are based on vehicles per day rather than vehicles per hour. Roadway segments are assumed to the deficient when daily volumes exceed the capacity defined for its roadway classification. Existing Conditions 24-hour roadway volumes along each roadway segment were provided by the Town and are provided in Attachment B. Volumes along Orange Blossom Way and Osage Station Park Driveway were collected on Wednesday (May 24, 2023), Thursday (May 25, 2023), and Saturday (May 27, 2023). Volumes along El Capitan Drive were collected on Wednesday (September 8, 2021) and Thursday (September 9, 2021). Daily volumes for each segment are summarized in Table 5. As a conservative approach, the maximum daily weekday volumes were used for the existing conditions analysis. Page 8 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 5 – Existing Roadway Volumes (Daily) #Roadway Segment Daily Volume Maximum Daily VolumeWed, 5/24/23 Thurs, 5/25/23 Sat, 5/27/23 Wed, 9/8/21 Thurs, 9/9/21 1 Orange Blossom Way south of Osage Station Park Driveway 1,210 1,251 720 N/A N/A 1,251 2 Orange Blossom Way north of Osage Station Park Driveway 928 1,049 415 N/A N/A 1,049 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way 726 771 465 N/A N/A 771 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon N/A N/A N/A 3,000 3,045 3,045 Note: Roadway volumes shown are the total of both directions. Volumes were not collected on days shown with “N/A”. Existing daily roadway volumes were compared against the capacity thresholds (vehicles per day) defined in the Town of Danville General Plan. Orange Blossom Way and Osage Station Park Driveway are classified as a local roadway with a capacity less than 1,500 vehicles per day. El Capitan Drive is classified as a minor collector with a capacity between 3,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. As shown in Table 6, existing daily roadway volumes are below the capacity thresholds for all roadway segments. Table 6 – Existing Roadway Segment Analysis (Daily) #Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Capacity (vehicles per day) Scenario Existing Volume (vehicles per day) 1 Orange Blossom Way south of Osage Station Park Driveway Local 1,499 1,251 2 Orange Blossom Way north of Osage Station Park Driveway Local 1,499 1,049 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way Local 1,499 771 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon Minor Collector 10,000 3,045 Note: Roadway volumes shown are the total of both directions. Page 9 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Trip Generation Trip generation for developments is typically calculated based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE)Trip Generation, 11th Edition3. This is the standard reference for determining trip generation for potential projects. Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were calculated based on data within this reference. For some land uses, an average rate and a fitted curve equation are provided for the sample data. Since the ITE Trip Generation Manual does not have a land use for pickleball courts, the average rate for ITE land use 490 (Tennis Court) was used instead. Consistent with the parking analysis, an adjustment factor of 1.5 was applied to the average trip generation rate to reflect a doubles game. The total proposed project trip generation is shown in Table 7 for Scenarios #1 and #2. As shown in the table, Scenario #1 will generate 182 daily trips and 26 PM peak hour trips, while Scenario #2 will generate 273 daily trips and 39 PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour trip generation is not shown since trip generation rates for the AM peak hour are not available for ITE 490 (Tennis Court). Table 7 – Proposed Project Trip Generation Land Use ITE Land Use Code Size (Units)Rate Daily Trips PM Peak Hour In Out Total Pickleball Courts 490 (Tennis Court) 4 Courts (Scenario #1) Daily: 30.32 PM: 4.21 121 8 9 17 Adjustment Factor for Pickleball 61 4 5 9 Total 182 12 14 26 6 Courts (Scenario #2) Daily: 30.32 PM: 4.21 182 13 13 26 Adjustment Factor for Pickleball 91 6 7 13 Total 273 19 20 39 Notes: 1. AM peak hour trip generation rates are not available for ITE land use code 490 (Tennis Courts). Therefore, no AM peak hour trip generation is shown. 2. The adjustment factor for pickleball being a doubles sport is conservative and assumes that tennis players all play singles and pickleball players all play doubles. Therefore, the tennis courts trip generation was adjusted by a factor of 1.5 for pickleball courts, to be conservative. Trip Distribution and Assignment The Project’s trip distribution was estimated based on the project access locations, freeway access, location of existing pickleballs courts, and roadway network within the study area. The trips were distributed as follows: 3 Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., 2021. Page 10 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 · El Capitan Drive west of Orange Blossom Way – 75 percent · El Capitan Drive east of Orange Blossom Way – 15 percent · Orange Blossom Way north of Project Driveway – 10 percent This trip distribution assumes that the majority of vehicle trips would use Camino Ramon to the west to access I-680 and other nearby residences. Only 10 percent of the vehicle trips were assumed to be from the north on Orange Blossom Way because it is assumed that regional traffic would use El Capitan Drive and local traffic from the north would likely walk or bicycle to the Osage Station Park. Based on the assumed trip distribution, the daily volumes generated by the project were assigned to the roadway segments and results in the project volumes shown in Table 8 for Scenarios #1 and #2. As mentioned previously, daily project volumes were analyzed rather than PM peak hour trips as roadway capacities provided in the general plan are based on vehicles per day rather than vehicles per hour. Table 8 – Project Trip Assignment (Daily) #Roadway Segment Scenario #1 (4 Pickleball Courts) vehicles per day Scenario #2 (6 Pickleball Courts) vehicles per day 1 Orange Blossom Way south of Osage Station Park Driveway 164 246 2 Orange Blossom Way north of Osage Station Park Driveway 18 27 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way 182 273 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon 137 205 Note: Project volumes shown are the total of both directions. Existing Plus Project Conditions Daily project volumes were added to the existing roadway segment volumes and are shown in Table 9. As shown in the table, all roadway segment volumes under existing plus project conditions are below the capacity threshold. Page 11 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 9 – Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis (Daily) #Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Capacity (Vehicles per day) Scenario Existing Volume (vehicles per day) Existing + Scenario #1 (vehicles per day) Existing + Scenario #2 (vehicles per day) 1 Orange Blossom Way south of Osage Station Park Driveway Local 1,499 1,251 1,415 1,497 2 Orange Blossom Way north of Osage Station Park Driveway Local 1,499 1,049 1,067 1,076 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way Local 1,499 771 953 1,044 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon Minor Collector 10,000 3,045 3,182 3,250 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) As noted in the Methodology section of this memorandum, CCTA’s Project VMT screening criteria includes the following: · Projects of 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. · Public facilities (e.g., emergency services, passive parks (low-intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. When calculating the size of the Project, the four (Scenario 1) and six (Scenario 2) additional pickleball courts were considered. A pickleball court itself is generally 880 square-feet (20 feet by 44 feet), which would equate to 5,280 square-feet of total space when 6 courts are considered. When calculating the entire size, which includes accounting for space between courts, an additional 75- percent of the size of the pickleball court is required. This would result in a total space requirement of 9,240 square-feet, which is less than the 10,000 square-foot screening threshold provided above. The Project is expected to generate approximately 182 trips per day for Scenario 1 and 273 trips per day for Scenario 2. Using CCTA’s screening criteria of 836 VMT per day, this would require an average roundtrip trip length of 4.6-miles for Scenario 1 (2.3-miles one-way) or 3.1-miles for Scenario 2 (1.55-miles one-way) to fall below the daily VMT threshold. As the trips associated with the Project are expected to be predominantly from within the Town, with a majority occurring in the general vicinity of the Project, it is likely that the required trip lengths would occur. However, because a trip length study of existing trips was not conducted, it cannot be concluded whether the 836 daily VMT threshold would be reached. Page 12 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 When evaluating the Project against the second screening criteria, it was concluded that the Project would be considered a locally serving public facility based on the Project expanding an existing use in a public park. In addition, as the users of the Project would come from the general vicinity of the Project or predominately within the Town, this would also qualify the Project as a locally serving public facility. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Project meets this screening criteria. When considering the impact the Project would have on existing VMT within the region, it is likely that the Project would reduce VMT compared to Existing Conditions. This is because the Project is an expansion of existing Pickleball courts, likely responding to a latent demand for Pickleball courts that is currently being supplied by additional courts outside of the Town. Simply put, under Existing Conditions, some residents of Danville currently drive outside of the Town for pickleball courts as the existing ones are occupied. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, these same residents would use the courts provided by the Project. Therefore, the amount of VMT that Danville and other local residents would produce to access pickleball courts would be reduced. Based on this assessment and the results of the screening analysis, it can be concluded that the Project would result in a less than significant impact. CONCLUSION The project proposes to construct additional pickleball courts at Osage Station Park in Danville, CA. Two scenarios are considered for the project with Scenario #1 proposing 4 additional pickleball courts and Scenario #2 proposing 6 additional pickleball courts at the project site. Visitors of the pickleball courts can park at the Osage Station Park South parking lot, the Osage Station Park North parking lot, and the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. These parking lots provided a total of 318 parking spaces. Peak parking demands for Scenarios #1 and #2 were added to existing parking occupancies to determine the peak parking demand under existing plus project conditions. For Scenario #1, the peak parking demand occurs at 6:00 PM with a demand of 283 parking spaces (89 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and at 10:00 AM with a demand of 253 parking spaces (80 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. For Scenario #2, the peak parking demand occurs at 6:00 PM with a demand of 289 parking spaces (91 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and at 10:00 AM with a demand of 260 parking spaces (82 percent occupancy) for a Saturday.Therefore, the available parking supply for all three parking lots of 318 parking spaces is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for Scenario #1 and #2 for a typical weekday and Saturday. During weekdays, visitors may park at the nearby Osage Station South Parking lot as there is available parking spaces to meet the peak parking demand for Scenarios #1 and #2 and the other two parking lots are fully occupied. During Saturdays, visitors may park at the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot as there is available parking spaces to meet the peak parking demand for Scenarios #1 and #2 and the other two parking lots near full capacity. With the addition of the project, the daily roadway volumes under existing plus project conditions would result in volumes less than the capacity threshold for all segments under Scenario #1 and #2. Therefore, the project would not generate any deficiencies on the nearby roadway segments for both scenarios. Page 13 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Based on the VMT analysis, the results showed that the project would satisfy CCTA’s VMT screening criteria for public facilities. Since the project is expanding an existing use within a public park and would generate users from the general vicinity of the project site, the project is considered a locally serving public facility. In addition, the project is likely responding to the increase in demand for Pickleball courts and therefore, residents currently traveling outside of the Town will now use the proposed courts within the Town. As a result, the amount of VMT that Danville and other local residents would produce to access the pickleball courts would be reduced.Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Attachments: Attachment A – Existing Parking Occupancy Data Attachment B – Average Daily Traffic Volumes Baseline Count 3 Date 5/24/2023 Charlotte Wood Middle School TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 3 4 0 7:15 7 4 0 7:30 11 9 2 7:45 18 19 3 8:00 34 13 4 8:15 43 10 0 8:30 53 6 5 8:45 54 14 11 9:00 57 90 73 9:15 74 177 181 9:30 70 17 25 9:45 62 7 4 10:00 65 3 4 10:15 64 1 1 10:30 64 7 5 10:45 66 5 8 11:00 63 3 2 11:15 64 3 6 11:30 61 2 3 11:45 60 5 1 12:00 64 2 3 12:15 63 2 3 12:30 62 5 3 12:45 64 4 3 13:00 65 3 5 13:15 63 5 4 13:30 64 2 4 13:45 62 2 2 14:00 62 9 8 14:15 63 20 5 14:30 78 54 15 14:45 117 57 113 15:00 61 30 62 15:15 29 22 30 15:30 21 9 12 15:45 18 18 13 16:00 23 24 19 16:15 28 20 7 16:30 41 28 9 16:45 60 28 11 17:00 77 38 27 17:15 88 51 29 17:30 110 41 45 17:45 106 36 40 18:00 102 17 30 18:15 89 16 12 18:30 93 43 8 18:45 128 66 45 Driveway Attachment A Baseline Count 4 Date 5/24/2023 Osage Station South (Tennis & Pickleball Lot) TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 4 7:15 7 7:30 8 7:45 11 8:00 9 8:15 9 8:30 12 8:45 12 9:00 12 9:15 14 9:30 18 9:45 21 10:00 23 10:15 23 10:30 21 10:45 19 11:00 23 11:15 19 11:30 18 11:45 13 12:00 17 12:15 17 12:30 14 12:45 13 13:00 13 13:15 13 13:30 12 13:45 10 14:00 8 14:15 8 14:30 15 14:45 23 15:00 7 15:15 4 15:30 6 15:45 7 16:00 17 16:15 18 16:30 13 16:45 16 17:00 14 17:15 13 17:30 17 17:45 19 18:00 20 18:15 18 18:30 24 18:45 24 Driveway Baseline Count 0 Date 5/24/2023 Osage Station North TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 0 0 0 7:15 0 3 0 7:30 3 2 1 7:45 4 1 1 8:00 4 0 2 8:15 2 5 2 8:30 5 5 4 8:45 6 8 2 9:00 12 7 6 9:15 13 5 8 9:30 10 7 1 9:45 16 9 3 10:00 22 7 2 10:15 27 9 5 10:30 31 11 4 10:45 38 10 5 11:00 43 6 12 11:15 37 10 6 11:30 41 12 12 11:45 41 17 15 12:00 43 15 10 12:15 48 10 5 12:30 53 6 2 12:45 57 8 10 13:00 55 9 10 13:15 54 7 18 13:30 43 11 14 13:45 40 14 10 14:00 44 4 12 14:15 36 8 19 14:30 25 12 6 14:45 31 33 42 15:00 22 6 11 15:15 17 5 4 15:30 18 11 8 15:45 21 8 7 16:00 22 28 8 16:15 42 58 14 16:30 86 36 14 16:45 108 25 19 17:00 114 30 10 17:15 134 32 31 17:30 135 19 19 17:45 135 12 26 18:00 121 9 42 18:15 88 10 15 18:30 83 6 9 18:45 80 10 10 Driveway Baseline Count 1 Date 6/3/2023 Charlotte Wood Middle School TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 1 4 0 0 7:15 5 2 1 0 7:30 6 16 1 0 7:45 19 23 1 2 8:00 41 1 0 0 8:15 42 2 1 0 8:30 43 1 1 0 8:45 42 6 3 1 9:00 45 3 5 0 9:15 43 0 0 0 9:30 43 2 2 0 9:45 43 1 1 0 10:00 42 6 0 1 10:15 47 6 1 1 10:30 52 4 3 0 10:45 53 3 4 0 11:00 52 1 2 0 11:15 51 3 3 0 11:30 51 1 2 0 11:45 50 4 3 0 12:00 51 0 4 0 12:15 47 0 0 0 12:30 47 1 1 0 12:45 47 4 2 0 13:00 48 2 1 1 13:15 49 1 1 0 13:30 48 3 4 1 13:45 37 11 30 10 14:00 16 5 12 2 14:15 6 7 8 3 14:30 5 1 3 0 14:45 3 0 1 0 15:00 2 1 1 0 15:15 2 0 1 0 15:30 1 1 0 0 15:45 2 0 1 0 16:00 1 0 0 0 16:15 1 1 1 0 16:30 1 1 1 0 16:45 1 0 0 0 17:00 1 1 1 0 17:15 1 0 0 0 17:30 1 0 0 0 17:45 1 3 2 0 18:00 2 0 0 0 18:15 2 1 1 0 18:30 2 2 1 0 18:45 3 2 1 0 Driveway Baseline Count 7 Date 6/3/2023 Osage Station South (Tennis & Pickleball Lot) TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 7 9 2 7:15 14 2 1 7:30 15 4 2 7:45 17 12 5 8:00 24 15 6 8:15 33 9 1 8:30 41 6 7 8:45 40 25 3 9:00 62 10 15 9:15 57 5 5 9:30 57 8 4 9:45 61 12 12 10:00 61 4 4 10:15 61 4 8 10:30 57 3 8 10:45 52 6 17 11:00 41 8 20 11:15 29 6 7 11:30 28 8 8 11:45 28 6 3 12:00 31 6 4 12:15 33 5 7 12:30 31 6 0 12:45 37 5 0 13:00 42 8 4 13:15 46 5 1 13:30 50 1 4 13:45 47 3 5 14:00 45 2 29 14:15 18 2 7 14:30 13 3 2 14:45 14 12 9 15:00 17 4 4 15:15 17 6 2 15:30 21 2 5 15:45 18 2 2 16:00 18 10 10 16:15 18 0 3 16:30 15 4 3 16:45 16 3 9 17:00 10 6 7 17:15 9 2 1 17:30 10 5 1 17:45 14 0 3 18:00 11 2 4 18:15 9 2 0 18:30 11 4 3 18:45 12 3 3 Driveway Baseline Count 33 Date 6/3/2023 Osage Station North TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 33 8 3 7:15 38 2 0 7:30 40 13 6 7:45 47 30 7 8:00 70 23 9 8:15 84 15 11 8:30 88 16 9 8:45 95 11 10 9:00 96 23 6 9:15 113 13 13 9:30 113 8 8 9:45 113 20 20 10:00 113 24 14 10:15 123 22 19 10:30 126 20 33 10:45 113 37 52 11:00 98 36 25 11:15 109 21 12 11:30 118 23 18 11:45 123 22 21 12:00 124 12 12 12:15 124 13 15 12:30 122 14 15 12:45 121 21 20 13:00 122 14 9 13:15 127 8 22 13:30 113 14 31 13:45 96 26 35 14:00 87 19 39 14:15 67 14 12 14:30 69 10 11 14:45 68 19 6 15:00 81 14 2 15:15 93 4 12 15:30 85 5 8 15:45 82 6 8 16:00 80 6 3 16:15 83 8 21 16:30 70 10 12 16:45 68 12 24 17:00 56 16 18 17:15 54 6 8 17:30 52 2 17 17:45 37 3 5 18:00 35 6 13 18:15 28 6 18 18:30 16 5 9 18:45 12 4 8 Driveway Location:1 - Orange Blossom Way, S/O Osage Park South Lot Date Range:5/24/2023 - 5/30/2023 Site Code: NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 ---0 1 1 ---------1 1 1 1:00 AM 2 1 3 1 0 1 ---2 2 4 ---------2 1 2 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 ---0 1 1 ---------0 1 1 5:00 AM 0 1 1 2 4 6 ---0 0 0 ---------1 3 4 6:00 AM 6 1 7 6 4 10 ---13 3 16 ---------6 3 9 7:00 AM 21 10 31 26 23 49 ---16 13 29 ---------24 17 40 8:00 AM 58 45 103 84 82 166 ---26 23 49 ---------71 64 135 9:00 AM 64 61 125 30 24 54 ---24 27 51 ---------47 43 90 10:00 AM 23 24 47 26 19 45 ---38 34 72 ---------25 22 46 11:00 AM 38 34 72 31 27 58 ---33 40 73 ---------35 31 65 12:00 PM 23 41 64 25 44 69 ---35 40 75 ---------24 43 67 1:00 PM 37 45 82 30 30 60 ---31 30 61 ---------34 38 71 2:00 PM 72 60 132 69 59 128 ---19 30 49 ---------71 60 130 3:00 PM 44 34 78 70 55 125 ---24 20 44 ---------57 45 102 4:00 PM 61 47 108 66 54 120 ---16 33 49 ---------64 51 114 5:00 PM 83 62 145 67 48 115 ---17 17 34 ---------75 55 130 6:00 PM 30 58 88 42 52 94 ---12 24 36 ---------36 55 91 7:00 PM 28 45 73 32 55 87 ---10 28 38 ---------30 50 80 8:00 PM 15 21 36 16 18 34 ---6 12 18 ---------16 20 35 9:00 PM 2 5 7 6 8 14 ---6 4 10 ---------4 7 11 10:00 PM 0 3 3 3 4 7 ---3 5 8 ---------2 4 5 11:00 PM 2 2 4 3 4 7 ---1 1 2 ---------3 3 6 Total 609 601 1,210 636 615 1,251 ---332 388 720 ---------623 608 1,231 Percent 50%50%51%49%--46%54%------51%49% AM Peak 09:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 ---10:00 11:00 11:00 ---------08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol.64 61 125 84 82 166 ---38 40 73 ---------71 64 135 PM Peak 17:00 17:00 17:00 15:00 14:00 14:00 ---12:00 12:00 12:00 ---------17:00 14:00 14:00 Vol.83 62 145 70 59 128 ---35 40 75 ---------75 60 130 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Time Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Mid-Week Average5/30/20235/24/2023 5/25/2023 5/26/2023 5/27/2023 5/28/2023 5/29/2023 1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com Attachment B Location:2 - Orange Blossom Way, N/O Osage Park South Lot Date Range:5/24/2023 - 5/30/2023 Site Code: NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 ---0 1 1 ---------1 1 1 1:00 AM 2 1 3 1 0 1 ---1 2 3 ---------2 1 2 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 ---0 1 1 ---------0 1 1 5:00 AM 0 1 1 1 4 5 ---0 0 0 ---------1 3 3 6:00 AM 1 0 1 3 3 6 ---6 3 9 ---------2 2 4 7:00 AM 10 6 16 16 21 37 ---2 7 9 ---------13 14 27 8:00 AM 41 39 80 93 97 190 ---14 16 30 ---------67 68 135 9:00 AM 56 67 123 16 20 36 ---6 14 20 ---------36 44 80 10:00 AM 11 12 23 20 6 26 ---14 17 31 ---------16 9 25 11:00 AM 29 16 45 21 22 43 ---17 23 40 ---------25 19 44 12:00 PM 16 27 43 15 27 42 ---25 19 44 ---------16 27 43 1:00 PM 30 32 62 25 21 46 ---16 18 34 ---------28 27 54 2:00 PM 64 55 119 66 70 136 ---13 21 34 ---------65 63 128 3:00 PM 26 31 57 52 43 95 ---16 14 30 ---------39 37 76 4:00 PM 40 39 79 49 50 99 ---9 22 31 ---------45 45 89 5:00 PM 48 49 97 49 44 93 ---9 12 21 ---------49 47 95 6:00 PM 23 49 72 32 32 64 ---8 19 27 ---------28 41 68 7:00 PM 33 23 56 37 40 77 ---6 15 21 ---------35 32 67 8:00 PM 20 18 38 14 12 26 ---5 6 11 ---------17 15 32 9:00 PM 2 5 7 5 8 13 ---6 4 10 ---------4 7 10 10:00 PM 0 3 3 4 3 7 ---2 4 6 ---------2 3 5 11:00 PM 1 1 2 2 3 5 ---1 1 2 ---------2 2 4 Total 453 475 928 522 527 1,049 ---176 239 415 ---------488 501 989 Percent 49%51%50%50%--42%58%------49%51% AM Peak 09:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 ---11:00 11:00 11:00 ---------08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol.56 67 123 93 97 190 ---17 23 40 ---------67 68 135 PM Peak 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 ---12:00 16:00 12:00 ---------14:00 14:00 14:00 Vol.64 55 119 66 70 136 ---25 22 44 ---------65 63 128 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Time Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Mid-Week Average5/30/20235/24/2023 5/25/2023 5/26/2023 5/27/2023 5/28/2023 5/29/2023 1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com Location:3 - Osage Park South Lot, E/O Orange Blossom Way Date Range:5/24/2023 - 5/30/2023 Site Code: EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 3:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------1 0 1 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 ---------0 0 0 6:00 AM 1 1 2 4 7 11 ---8 3 11 ---------3 4 7 7:00 AM 13 10 23 16 16 32 ---9 4 13 ---------15 13 28 8:00 AM 20 14 34 71 88 159 ---16 23 39 ---------46 51 97 9:00 AM 62 72 134 23 12 35 ---17 19 36 ---------43 42 85 10:00 AM 10 22 32 6 28 34 ---21 23 44 ---------8 25 33 11:00 AM 9 24 33 10 16 26 ---23 31 54 ---------10 20 30 12:00 PM 17 27 44 14 26 40 ---20 38 58 ---------16 27 42 1:00 PM 13 29 42 13 21 34 ---13 26 39 ---------13 25 38 2:00 PM 41 42 83 37 65 102 ---10 22 32 ---------39 54 93 3:00 PM 23 21 44 32 18 50 ---15 12 27 ---------28 20 47 4:00 PM 19 25 44 27 27 54 ---10 17 27 ---------23 26 49 5:00 PM 39 34 73 33 29 62 ---11 10 21 ---------36 32 68 6:00 PM 23 33 56 15 32 47 ---12 12 24 ---------19 33 52 7:00 PM 13 44 57 16 44 60 ---5 17 22 ---------15 44 59 8:00 PM 7 14 21 3 9 12 ---2 9 11 ---------5 12 17 9:00 PM 0 2 2 0 0 0 ---3 2 5 ---------0 1 1 10:00 PM 0 0 0 3 6 9 ---1 1 2 ---------2 3 5 11:00 PM 0 1 1 2 2 4 ---0 0 0 ---------1 2 3 Total 311 415 726 325 446 771 ---196 269 465 ---------318 431 749 Percent 43%57%42%58%--42%58%------42%58% AM Peak 09:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 ---11:00 11:00 11:00 ---------08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol.62 72 134 71 88 159 ---23 31 54 ---------46 51 97 PM Peak 14:00 19:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 ---12:00 12:00 12:00 ---------14:00 14:00 14:00 Vol.41 44 83 37 65 102 ---20 38 58 ---------39 54 93 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Time Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Mid-Week Average5/30/20235/24/2023 5/25/2023 5/26/2023 5/27/2023 5/28/2023 5/29/2023 1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com Location:El Capitan Dr, East of Camino Ramon Date Range:9/8/2021 - 9/14/2021 Site Code:34 Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 12:00 AM 2 0 2 0 3 3 ---------------1 2 3 1:00 AM 1 3 4 1 0 1 ---------------1 2 3 2:00 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 ---------------1 0 1 3:00 AM 0 1 1 1 1 2 ---------------1 1 2 4:00 AM 2 6 8 2 5 7 ---------------2 6 8 5:00 AM 5 16 21 4 10 14 ---------------5 13 18 6:00 AM 34 28 62 21 20 41 ---------------28 24 52 7:00 AM 59 73 132 113 121 234 ---------------86 97 183 8:00 AM 113 130 243 167 248 415 ---------------140 189 329 9:00 AM 197 232 429 88 91 179 ---------------143 162 304 10:00 AM 59 100 159 54 69 123 ---------------57 85 141 11:00 AM 75 79 154 60 87 147 ---------------68 83 151 12:00 PM 76 90 166 66 78 144 ---------------71 84 155 1:00 PM 83 94 177 99 79 178 ---------------91 87 178 2:00 PM 182 175 357 154 205 359 ---------------168 190 358 3:00 PM 130 134 264 133 126 259 ---------------132 130 262 4:00 PM 88 88 176 99 104 203 ---------------94 96 190 5:00 PM 121 77 198 119 139 258 ---------------120 108 228 6:00 PM 88 63 151 101 90 191 ---------------95 77 171 7:00 PM 67 85 152 69 66 135 ---------------68 76 144 8:00 PM 47 34 81 45 31 76 ---------------46 33 79 9:00 PM 25 12 37 31 14 45 ---------------28 13 41 10:00 PM 12 5 17 18 6 24 ---------------15 6 21 11:00 PM 3 4 7 6 1 7 ---------------5 3 7 Total 1,471 1,529 3,000 1,451 1,594 3,045 ---------------1,461 1,562 3,023 Percent 49%51%-48%52%----------------48%52%- AM Peak 09:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 ---------------09:00 08:00 08:00 Vol.197 232 429 167 248 415 ---------------143 189 329 PM Peak 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 ---------------14:00 14:00 14:00 Vol.182 175 357 154 205 359 ---------------168 190 358 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 9/14/20219/13/20219/12/20219/11/2021 Wednesday Thursday Friday 9/9/20219/8/2021 Mid-Week Average9/10/2021 Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday 1Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com