The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 5.1 Correspondence as of 1100am on December 13, 2023 (1)From:RON FONG To:Gail Massagli Subject:Dec 13 Parks Recreation and Arts Commission Meeting (Agenda Item 5.1) Date:Tuesday, December 12, 2023 10:06:45 PM***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize thesender and know the content is safe. TO: Gail Massagli RE: Dec 13th Parks Recreation and Arts Commission Meeting (Agenda Item 5.1) I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife to support adopting the "Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance" which was prepared as part of the CEQA environmental impact study to expand the pickleball facility at Osage Station Park. By adopting the "Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance" we are hoping that the project to expand the pickleball courts at Osage Station Park can now proceed to the next steps through completion. We thank all the members of the Commission and Town staff members who have worked endlessly over many, many years to provide a quality facility to play pickleball which meets the growing demand of our community. Ron and Barb Fong 436 Silver Chief Place Danville, CA Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Correspondence received as of 11:00 a.m. on December 13, 2023 From:Juliana .Wong To:Gail Massagli Subject:Pickleball courts Date:Tuesday, December 12, 2023 11:15:19 PM***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize thesender and know the content is safe. Hi Gail I am in support of the new 6 more pickleball courts in Osage park. Adding lights would be welcome also Thank you. Juliana Wong From:Yurika Toyofuku To:Gail Massagli Subject:The parks and rec meeting 12/13/23 agenda item 5.1 Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:14:09 AM ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I’m support of additional courts. Yurika Toyofuku Sent from my iPhone From:B Yeh To:Gail Massagli; Gail Massagli Subject:Support of additional pickleball courts Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:37:26 AM ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear town council members, I am writing in support of adding additional pickleball courts at Osage Park. I began playing pickleball mid2021 & have really enjoyed both the game & the camaraderie that has developed with my fellow pickleballers. I’m sort of a new resident to Danville having moved here in late 2015. The group of people I have met at Osage playing pickleball has greatly expanded my group of friends & my emotional health. This game has built community for me. I greatly appreciate that part of the game that is hard to describe but easily felt. Please vote to expand the pickleball courts & build more community! We so sorely need it! Barbara Yeh 673 Paradise Valley South Danville From:Henry Perezalonso To:Amy Gerace Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Opposition to Pickleball Courts at Osage Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:45:24 AMAmy, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: Amy Gerace <amylgerace@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:13 PM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Opposition to Pickleball Courts at Osage ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Leaders, I'm writing as a resident of Orange Blossom Way in Danville. I'm deeply concerned with the thought of Osage Park turning into a Pickleball venue. With the number of houses directly around the park, the noise will be a huge nuisance. Additionally, and most importantly, as a mother of 3 children, the additional traffic and lack of parking clutters Orange Blossom Way making it a HUGE safety concern. You probably don't notice how it is nearly impossible for 2 cars to cross at the same time on Orange Blossom if there are cars parked on both sides of the street. There are currently large cones marking off red zones by crosswalks and officials parked to watch children safety. Clearly the current traffic pattern is cause enough for concern. I have a hard time understanding how driving more traffic to this location isn't being discouraged. Other venues that have major arteries and larger parking lots seem like a natural fit for additional pickleball courts. Sincerely, Amy Gerace From:Henry Perezalonso To:Stuart Flashman Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Comments on item 5.1 on tomorrow"s Parks, Recreation, & Arts Commission agenda (Osage Station Park pickleball courts) Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:47:39 AM Attachments:image001.pngStuart, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. As youknow, we are currently in a public review period of a negative declaration ofenvironmental significance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project.The Commission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: Stuart Flashman <stu@stuflash.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:59 PM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov> Cc: Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Comments on item 5.1 on tomorrow's Parks, Recreation, & Arts Commission agenda (Osage Station Park pickleball courts) Importance: High ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Perenzalonzo and Commissioners, Attached please find a comment letter in opposition to item 5.1 on tomorrow’s Parks, Recreation, & Arts meeting agenda. Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX) e-mail: stu@stuflash.com 12 December 2023 Parks, Recreation & Arts Commission Attn: Henry Perezalonso, Director Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Re: Proposed expansion of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Dear Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of my clients, a group of Danville residents who live near the above-referenced park, concerning the proposal before you this Wednesday, December 13, 2023, to expand the number of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. That proposal originally came before you in November of 2022. At that time, the Town proposed to approve the project without any environmental review based on a CEQA exemption. I wrote to you at that time and pointed out that a CEQA exemption was inappropriate because there was evidence indicating that the expansion, from two pickleball courts to eight, was likely to have significant environmental impacts, notably on noise and pedestrian safety. The Town wisely decided not to proceed forward based on a CEQA exemption but to initiate CEQA review using an initial study. The Town’s draft initial study proposes preparing a negative declaration, which would assert that there was no reasonable possibility of the expansion project having a significant impact. The initial study has attached two technical reports prepared by consultants to the Town, purporting to provide supporting evidence. Unfortunately, however, the noise study by Rincon Consultants is seriously flawed, as is explained more fully in the attached letter from Dr. R. Lance Willis, an acoustic consultant I retained to evaluate that study. (See Attachment 1.) The Town’s traffic analysis, prepared by Kimley|Horn, while less seriously flawed, also includes problematic conclusions that are not fully supported by the evidence it presents. TOWN NOISE STUDY The fundamental flaw in the Town’s noise study is that it measured the wrong characteristic for the type of concern raised in the CEQA review of the project. The study begins by citing various Town regulations related to noise. The only one providing a quantitative limit on noise is Policy 27.09 in the Town General Plan’s noise element. That policy generally limits noise levels to 60 Ldn in areas where outdoor activities take place. Ldn is an average sound measurement that includes a “penalty” for noise occurring in night or evening hours. However, while Ldn may be an appropriate standard for use in making general land use decisions, an average noise level, such as Ldn or Leq, is not appropriate for use in analyzing impacts under CEQA, especially when one is concerned with impacts that may result from many individual high volume but short duration noise events. (See, e.g., Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732 and cases cited therein.) For example a single 22 caliber rifle shot has a volume of 140-150 dBA (see Attachment 2). However, that sound lasts only milliseconds, so if the sound level is averaged over an hour, the noise of even multiple gunshots would be submerged in the much lower volume background. Yet there can be little doubt that an activity resulting in multiple 145 dBA gunshots would have a significant noise impact – enough to cause permanent hearing damage. Comment letter on Osage Station Park Pickleball Project December 12, 2023 Page 2 While the Town’s noise study measured both Leq and Lmax for the existing Town pickleball courts, the sound meter used for the measurements was set for “slow” response. (Rincon Consultants report at page 3.) As Dr. Willis’ letter points out, the peak noise from a pickleball ball-racket impacts lasts less than five milliseconds. (Willis letter at page 3.) With the noise meter set a slow response, the impact noise will be greatly diluted, even for the so-called Lmax measurements. Dr. Willis makes clear that when evaluating the noise impacts of impulsive sounds, a very rapid response measurement is needed. The data collected by Rincon Consultants is useless for this purpose. As Dr. Willis further notes, impulsive sounds are much more disturbing than would be a relatively constant noise. (Willis letter at pages 7-8.) In addition, the tonal frequency of pickleball impact noise centers around 1000-2000 hertz, which is close to the frequency where human hearing is most sensitive. (Willis letter at page 2.) The Rincon report ignores that factor entirely. Indeed, studies properly considering impulsive sounds generally add a “penalty” factor to take into account the unusually intrusive nature of such noise. (See, J. Vos, On the annoyance caused by impulse sounds produced by small, medium large, and large firearms (2000) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 244-253 [copy attached].) There are additional problems with the Rincon report (for example, treating the pickleball courts as a single point source when in fact the project would involve multiple courts in an array and their effects on very nearby homes [see my earlier letter]) but those problems pale in comparison with the fundamental error in the type of data Rincon gathered and analyzed. In short, the Rincon report, which gathered the wrong data for the type of noise impact considered here, does not contain substantial evidence to support its conclusions. By contrast, Dr. Willis’ letter, while not based on data collected from the Danville pickleball courts, provides substantial evidence on the expected noise impacts of adding six more pickleball courts (a four-fold increase from the current situation) and that evidence supports a fair argument that the project, as proposed, will have significant impacts on the surrounding nearby residents. TOWN TRAFFIC REPORT The Town also commissioned a study on potential parking and traffic impacts. Like the Rincon Report, the report by Kimley|Horn (“K|H”) concludes there will be no significant parking or traffic impacts. Since the Legislature has decreed that parking impacts are not to be considered under CEQA, I will put that portion of the study aside, although a shortage in available parking, while not an impact under CEQA, can still be a considerable inconvenience to local residents, both those using the park and those living nearby. It can also result in potentially significant safety impacts if drivers resort to illegal parking spaces (e.g., next to a fire hydrant). There are two potentially significant flaws in the K|H report that could conceal potentially significant impacts. The first involves the project’s compliance with the General Plan’s transportation policy that the Town not approve projects that would result in traffic exceeding a roadway’s capacity. (See K|H report at pages 7-11.) In particular, on Orange Blossom Way south of the park, the consultants calculations show that scenario #2 (8 courts total) produces 1,497 vehicles per day. (K|H report at page 11 [Table 9].) This does not include any trips during the AM peak hour – even though the courts would be open starting at 8 AM – because the ITE manual does not give morning peak hours for tennis court use. (K|H report at page 9.) The resulting numbers for existing plus Scenario #2 show Orange Blossom Way south of the park two vehicles shy of the roadway’s capacity. (K|H report, Table 9 line 1.) The report concludes there is no violation of the Town’s capacity limits. Yet the figures used include no vehicles during the Comment letter on Osage Station Park Pickleball Project December 12, 2023 Page 3 morning peak hour. They also use the ITE figures for tennis courts1 while, at least at the moment pickleball enthusiasm far exceeds that for tennis – as shown by the Town’s willingness to replace a tennis court with two pickleball courts. Further, the figures make no allowance for induced demand. Induced demand, originally defined for highway expansion projects, reflects the reality of the concept “build it and they will come.” That is to say, enlarging a facility will result in trips that would not have occurred if the facility had not been built. Here, the analogous concept is that the increased availability of Pickleball courts at Osage Station Park will induce pickleball court use beyond what would be expected with existing facilities. That additional use is not reflected in the figures used in the report. Further, because the numbers derive from an ITE handbook, not specifically from Danville, they can only be considered approximations. Thus, there is a significant likelihood that actual use will exceed the ITE figures, which means roadway capacity on Orange Blossom Way south of the park would be exceeded. That would violate the general plan, as well as being a significant CEQA impact. The last flaw is in the VMT analysis. First, it is not clear that the project falls under an exemption from requiring a detailed VMT analysis. As the K|H report acknowledges, the first exemption, for project generating less than 836 VMT per day, cannot be shown to apply. However, the second, public facilities, exemption only applies to passive parks with low-intensity recreation use. Eight pickleball courts expected to be in continuous use every day does not qualify as low-intensity recreation. Further, the report speculates that “it is likely that the Project would reduce VMT compared to existing use.” The speculation is based on the assumption that local pickleball users are currently using other more distant courts. However, the report provides no evidence to support this speculation. Further, this speculation again ignores the strong likelihood that adding six new courts will result in induced demand for pickleball courts in the area. Their easy availability will result in more people trying to use the courts, and hence an increase in VMT. In short, the report fails to provide substantial evidence to support its assertion that the project will have no transportation impacts. In fact, the very evidence in the report supports a fair argument that there will be significant transportation impacts. CONCLUSION For all the above reasons, the initial study does not support the issuance of a negative declaration. The initial study needs to be revised to address the issues raised and a new conclusion presented for public review. Most sincerely Stuart M. Flashman cc: Joe Calabrigo Rob Ewing Adam Falcon 1 The report multiplies those rates by 1.5, attempting to account for the fact that tennis is usually played singles while pickleball is almost always played doubles, with twice as many vehicles per court. Attachment 1 Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Stuart Flashman Law Offices of Stuart Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618 Dear Mr. Flashman, This letter comments on the noise impact on surrounding homes resulting from the planned expansion of pickleball at Osage Park. A review of the technical deficiencies of the noise impact assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants [Perezalonso 2023] is also presented. The current assessment does not consider the noise impact of the impulsive sound produced by the impact of the pickleball and paddles that is the main concern, but instead uses a measurement methodology that averages this component of the sound out of the assessment. Qualifications in Regard to Pickleball Sound Abatement I am the Principal Acoustical Engineer at Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control, LLC. In that capacity, I regularly perform on site acoustical testing, community noise impact assessment, acoustical site planning, and noise abatement design for commercial and industrial sites, often near residential areas. I have been working as a consultant in environmental acoustics and noise control since 2005. I have Bachelor, Master of Science, and PhD degrees from the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology with a specialization in physical and engineering acoustics. I also received a multidisciplinary certificate in acoustics from the same institute. After finishing my PhD, and while working as an applications engineer in the Advanced Product Technology Center at Motorola, I completed distance learning at the Pennsylvania State University in psychological acoustics and experimental design. This coursework covered the human sensation of hearing and the perception of sound. I have been a member of the Acoustical Society of America since 1994 and the Audio Engineering Society from 1994 to 2021. Since 2010 I have assisted pickleball clubs, site planners, and home owners associations in site selection and noise abatement planning for pickleball courts. Some of these projects include: ABREGO AT GREEN VALLEY, AZ; CANOA RANCH, GREEN VALLEY, AZ; DESERTVIEW AT SADDLEBROOKE ROBSON RESORT COMMUNITY, AZ; RIDGEVIEW Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 1 of 16 AT SADDLEBROOKE ROBSON RESORT COMMUNITY, AZ; MOUNTAINVIEW AT SADDLEBROOKE ROBSON RESORT COMMUNITY, AZ; THE PRESERVE AT SADDLEBROOKE ROBSON RESORT COMMUNITY, AZ; ROBSON AT SUN LAKES / IRON OAKS, PHOENIX, AZ; ROBSON AT PEBBLE CREEK, PHOENIX, AZ; TRILOGY AT ENCANTERRA, PHOENIX, AZ; TRILOGY AT VERDE RIVER, PHOENIX, AZ; TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA, PHOENIX, AZ; SUNFLOWER DEVELOPMENT, TUCSON, AZ; YAVAPAI HILLS HOA, PRESCOTT, AZ; OUTDOOR RECREATION PALM SPRINGS, CATHEDRAL CITY, CA; HIDDEN PALMS, PALM DESERT, CA; ELKHORN HOA, SUN VALLEY, ID; PELICAN PRESERVE, FORT MYERS, FL;and PELICAN LANDING, BONITA SPRINGS, FL. I have also assisted home owners and home owners associations when pickleball courts have been placed close to residential properties without adequate noise abatement planning. The sites of these pickleball courts were ST MICHAEL’S BY-THE-SEA CHURCH, CARLSBAD, CA; COLUMBINE COUNTRY CLUB, LITTLETON, CO; TRILOGY AT POWER RANCH, GILBERT, AZ; private residence in LOUISVILLE, KY; private residence in CARLSBAD, CA; CHESTNUT WAY PARK, PORT MOODY, BRITISH COLUMBIA; and a park on WATERS END DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CA. In some instances, failure to plan for noise abatement or select an appropriate pickleball site has resulted in legal action. I have been an expert witness in several cases seeking an injunction against pickleball activities in California, Massachusets, Kentucky, and Colorado. These cases involved courts placed with insufficient buffer distance to neighbors and ad hoc mitigation treatments. Characteristics of Pickleball Sound The main concern in regard to noise from the pickleball courts is the sound produced by the impact of the hard plastic ball on the paddles. This sound is characterized by a rapid onset and brief duration, typically on the order of two to ten thousandths of a second (2 to 10 milliseconds) for the direct path sound (see Figure 1) thus classifying it as impulsive sound. The spectral content of the paddle impact is narrowband with a center frequency typically between 1,000 and 2,000 Hertz. This is near the most sensitive frequency range of human hearing. Although it does not meet most guidelines for tonal prominence such Annex C of ANSI S12.9 Part 4 or ANSI S1.13, it does impart a vague sensation of pitch. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 2 of 16 The impulsive sound of the paddle impacts is radiated mainly by the large, flat paddle surface. Measurements of several pickleball facilities have shown that the radiation pattern produced by the paddles has a null depth of 4 to 5 dB. Figure 2 compares a typical pickleball court directivity pattern to a mathematical dipole where 0º and 180º are in the direction of play and the null is on the 90º and 270º bearings. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 3 of 16 Figure 1. Sound Pressure Impulse Produced by Pickleball and Paddle Impact. Time is in milliseconds (0.001 seconds) Comparison of Pickleball to Other Activities There is a common misconception that pickleball is acoustically equivalent to tennis, volleyball, or many of the other activities typically found at outdoor recreation centers and parks. Numerous news articles covering disputes over pickleball noise, many of which originate when existing tennis courts are converted to pickleball, demonstrate that this is not the case: •Yang, Tami, “Pickleball is wreaking havoc across the US — and it’s only going to get worse,” New York Post, New York, New York. October 2, 2023. <https://nypost.com/2023/10/02/pickleball-is-wreaking-havoc-across-the-us/> •Cutler, Amy, “Rise of pickleball pitting neighbor against neighbor, leading to lawsuits,” Arizona's Family, Phoenix, Arizona. February 13, 2023. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 4 of 16 Figure 2. Typical Pickleball Court Directivity in Decibels <https://www.azfamily.com/2023/02/13/rise-pickleball-pitting-neighbor-against- neighbor-leading-lawsuits/> •Arden, Amanda, “Lake Oswego shuts down city pickleball courts indefinitely due to noise complaints.” KION 6 News, Portland, Oregon. January 23, 2023. <https://www.koin.com/local/lake-oswego-shuts-down-city-pickleball-courts- indefinitely-due-to-noise-complaints/> •Columbo, Mike, “Pickleball plan pits Kirkwood residents against neighboring country club.” Fox 2 Now, Saint Louis, Missouri. January 26, 2023. <https://fox2now.com/news/contact-2/pickleball-plan-pits-kirkwood-residents-against- neighboring-country-club/> •Sheets, Connor, “Pickleball noise is fueling neighborhood drama from coast to coast.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California. March 3, 2022. <https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-03/pickleball-noise-fueling- neighborhood-drama> •Adler, Erin, “Apple Valley neighbors in a pickle over pickleball noise.” Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota. March 27, 2019. <http://www.startribune.com/apple-valley- neighbors-in-a-pickle-over-pickleball-noise/507726242/> •Bartel, Mario, “Pickleball banished from Port Moody court after neighbours complain of rising stress, anxiety.” The Tri-City News, Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. April 24, 2021. <https://www.tricitynews.com/local-sports/these-games-are-loud-port-moody- pickleball-neighbours-revolt-against-rising-stress-anxiety-3662369> •City of Lakewood, “Green Mountain Courts Closure.” <https://www.lakewoodtogether.org/pickleball/news_feed/green-mountain-courts- update> •Higgins, Sean, “No vote on residential pickleball until city adopts new land management code.” KPCW News, Park City, Utah. January 27, 2022. <https://www.kpcw.org/park- city/2022-01-27/no-vote-on-residential-pickleball-until-city-adopts-new-land- management-code> •Maryniak, Paul, “Pickleball lights plan puts two HOAs at loggerheads.” Ahwatukee Foothills News, Tempe, Arizona. November 29, 2017. <https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_9056a946-d48e-11e7-9838- 8b69fb2d50b2.html> Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 5 of 16 •Bottemiller, Kitty, “Too loud! Pickleball noise upsets neighbors.” Green Valley News, Green Valley, Arizona. August 28, 2013. <https://www.gvnews.com/news/local/too-loud- pickleball-noise-upsets-neighbors/article_542c2aac-0f91-11e3-acdc-0019bb2963f4.html> •Clay, Joanna, “Woman sues Newport Beach over pickleball noise at park near her home.” Orange County Register, California. April 7, 2016. <https://www.ocregister.com/2016/04/07/woman-sues-newport-beach-over-pickleball- noise-at-park-near-her-home/> •Wheatley, Mike, “Noisy pickleball courts cause upset with homeowners.” Realty Biz News. March 15, 2022. <https://realtybiznews.com/noisy-pickleball-courts-cause-upset- with-homeowners/98768719/#:~:text=In one lawsuit in Newport Beach%2C Calif.%2C a,are causing them less enjoyment of their home.> •Lazaruk, Susan, “Pickleballers face off with residents over noise in Metro Vancouver.” Vancouver Sun, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. February 2, 2022. <https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/pickleballers-face-off-with-residents-over- noise-in-metro-vancouver> •Shanes, Alexis, “Village in a pickle: How Ridgewood plans to tone down the pickleball court noise.” northjersey.com, California. January 16, 2020. <https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/ridgewood/2020/01/16/ridgewood-nj- pickleball-noise-reduction-measures/4480463002/> •Monterey Herald Staff, “Pickleball noise controversy goes before city leaders Pacific Grove neighbors object to game at nearby tennis courts.” The Mercury News, California. September 19, 2019. <https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/19/pickleball-noise- controversy-goes-before-city-leaders/> •Fraser, Patrick and Rodriguez, Ambar, “What to do about constant pickleball noise?” WSVN 7 News Miami, Miami, Florida. March 27, 2019. <https://wsvn.com/news/help- me-howard/what-to-do-about-constant-pickleball-noise/> •Sutphin, Daniel, “Nixing the noise: Sound fence construction underway at Gilchrist pickleball courts.” Port Charlotte Sun, Charlotte Harbor, Florida. May 20, 2019. <https://www.yoursun.com/charlotte/news/nixing-the-noise-sound-fence-construction- underway-at-gilchrist-pickleball/article_79a764de-7b1c-11e9-b4d4-6bcaa919f3f3.html > •Corrigan, James, “York residents complain noise from pickleball club is hurting quality of life.” WMTW News 8, Portland, Maine. November 16, 2021. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 6 of 16 <https://www.wmtw.com/article/york-residents-complain-noise-from-pickleball-club-is- hurting-quality-of-life/38271921> It should be clear from the above list of references that pickleball constitutes a significant change in the acoustic environment of the area surrounding the courts in comparison to tennis and must be planned for accordingly. In particular, the impulsive sound produced by the impact of the hard plastic ball on the paddle can cause significant noise impact for those living near the courts. Effects of Impulsive Sound Persistent impulsive sounds create annoyance because they are similar to sounds that contain important information about our environment such as footsteps, a door opening, a tap at the window, or speech. We are sensitive to these types of sounds because they alert us to events occurring nearby that we may need to respond to. Continuous false alarms such as the popping sound created by pickleball paddle impacts make it difficult to relax, concentrate, or sleep soundly without disturbance as each time a pop is heard it draws the attention, creating distraction. While it is well known that high amplitude acoustical pressures can cause hearing impairment as well as other types injury to the body, lower amplitude sound can also have adverse long term physiological effects. The World Health Organization recognizes that low level noise exposure has measurable health effects. Sound/noise is a psychosocial stressor that activates the sympathetic and endocrine system. Acute noise effects do not only occur at high sound levels in occupational settings, but also at relatively low environmental sound levels when, more importantly, intended activities such as concentration, relaxation or sleep are disturbed. [WHO p. 61] The sympathetic nervous system is part of the autonomic nervous system and is involved in the body's fight or flight arousal response. Chronic activation of the sympathetic system leads to stress, fatigue, and anxiety. In addition to nervous system activation, sleep disturbance from noise can involve difficulty in falling asleep as well as awakenings that occur during sleep. Frequent awakenings lead to sleep fragmentation. This disrupts the normal stages of sleep and may lead to further neurocognitive manifestations not limited to daytime tiredness, loss of concentration, morning confusion, irritability, anxiety, and depression. [WHO p. 48, 26] Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 7 of 16 Environmental noise also has implications for the cardiovascular system, metabolism, and homeostasis, the ability of the body to regulate itself. The auditory system is continuously analyzing acoustic information, which is filtered and interpreted by different cortical and subcortical brain structures. The limbic system, including the hippocampus and the amygdala, plays an important role in the emotional processing pathways. It has a close connection to the hypothalamus that controls the autonomic nervous system and the hormonal balance of the body. Laboratory studies found changes in blood flow, [blood pressure] and heart rate in reaction to noise stimuli as well as increases in the release of stress hormones... Acoustic stimulation may act as an unspecific stressor that arouses the autonomic nervous system and the endocrine system... The arousal of the sympathetic and endocrine system is associated with changes in the physiological functions and the metabolism of the organism, including [blood pressure], cardiac output, blood lipids (cholesterol, triglycerides, free fatty acids, phosphatides), carbohydrates (glucose), electrolytes (magnesium, calcium), blood clotting factors (thrombocyte, aggregation, blood viscosity, leukocyte count) and others. In the long term, functional changes and dysregulation may occur, thus increasing the risk of manifest diseases. [WHO p. 62- 63] The effects of stress can take many forms as seen above. Low level noise exposure that disturbs sleep and concentration are known to produce a range of diagnosable illnesses and disorders. Assessing the Impulsive Sound of Pickleball Courts Based on our experience working with pickleball facilities, courts located within 350 feet of residential properties in most cases require noise abatement. Pickleball court sites within 500 to 600 feet of noise sensitive areas should be reviewed by a qualified acoustical engineer in the site selection phase of the project. The acoustical engineer should be familiar with modern methodologies for assessing highly impulsive sound such as ANSI S12.9 Part 4 or ISO 1996 Part 1. Courts located within 150 feet of homes sites require careful and often extensive noise abatement design to avoid complaints. Placing open air pickleball courts within 100 feet of residential properties is not recommended. The proposed pickleball courts (Figure 3) are within 225 feet of homes to the south and 160 feet of homes to the west. This is a setback distance that can be mitigated in some circumstances; however, many of the closest homes are two story. This needs to be considered when planning the height of any noise barriers as a noise barrier must be able to block the line of sight from the upper level windows to the players on the pickleball courts in order to be effective. The height of the primary sound source, the pickleball paddles, may range from near the court surface to about 8 feet for overhead shots. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 8 of 16 At the distances of the proposed courts, the peak sound pressure levels of the pickleball paddle impacts easily penetrate the interior of a home or condominium and will prevent the quiet enjoyment of the residents' use of their living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, balconies, patios, and other spaces used for rest, family activities, and activities requiring concentration such as Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 9 of 16 Figure 3. Proposed Eight Pickleball Courts reading. Pickleball courts this close to homes normally require some degree of shielding to maintain acceptable sound levels for the neighbors. Inaccuracies of Simple Averaging Measurement Techniques Equivalent-continuous Sound Pressure Level The equivalent-continuous level (Leq) is a type of average sound pressure level over the entire period of a measurement. It represents a sound pressure level that has the same total energy as a measured sound pressure level that may vary over the time of the measurement. While the equivalent-continuous sound pressure level includes all acoustical events and background noise that occur during the time of a measurement, including short impulsive events such as pickleball paddle impacts, it only gives an indication of the average level. It is not strongly influenced by peak sound pressure levels. For example, four pickleball courts may produce 50 to 60 paddle impacts each minute. That is one impact about every second. Equivalent-continuous averaging will therefore spread the energy of each paddle impact over a period of about one second. The result is that the paddle impacts will usually be indistinguishable from the background noise due to their very short duration. This, however, is not the way that human hearing works and will not be what is reported by observers near the courts. Applicable Codes and Regulations Town of Danville 2030 General Plan The land use compatibility guidelines in the General Plan are based on community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and day-night level (Ldn). These are average sound pressure levels based on Leq with adjustments for certain times of the day when residents tend to be at home or sleeping. For CNEL, sound pressure level during the evening hours, 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, is adjusted by 5 dBA and during nighttime hours, 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, by 10 dBA. Ldn does not include the evening adjustment. Adjustments for sounds with special characteristics such as tonal and impulsive are not mentioned. Danville Noise Ordinance The Danville Noise Ordinance does not give objective criteria for assessing noise impact; however, subjective criteria are given. Section 4-2.1 Findings and Declaration of Intent states, The Town Council finds that at certain levels noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and should be regulated in the public interest. It is the policy of Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 10 of 16 the Town that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Danville require protection from excessive, unnecessary, annoying and unreasonable noises from any and all controllable noise sources. Section 4-2.3(a) General Noise Regulations reiterates, 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. Both Code sections list annoyance as a criterion for noise impact assessment. Section 4-2.1 also recognizes the health impacts of community noise exposure as has been discussed above. The use of the term, annoyance, in regard to noise impact assessment can be traced back to the work of Schultz and other researchers in the 1960s and 1970s [Schultz 1978] and is the basis of federal standards for transportation noise assessment. Current standards for noise assessment in regard to annoyance for impulsive sound include ANSI S12.9 Part 4 and ISO 1996 Part 1. The CNEL noise assessment methodology in the General Plan does not address the annoyance of impulsive sound and does not correlate well with the community response to impulsive sounds of short duration such as impact processes, including pickleball paddle impacts. CNEL cannot, therefore, be used to address the annoyance requirement in the Danville Noise Code and should not be relied on for noise impact assessment in this application. ANSI S12.9 Part 4 and ISO 1996 Part 1 use a similar assessment procedure to CNEL that includes adjustments for weekend, evening, and nighttime hours, but also include adjustments for impulsive sound necessary for an accurate noise impact assessment of sound sources such pickleball paddles. These modern and more complete standards should be used to address the annoyance criterion in the Danville Noise Code. Comments on Rincon Noise Impact Assessment This section reviews the “Noise Study for the Osage Park Pickleball Project, Danville, California” prepared by Rincon Consultants [Perezalonso 2023]. The citations below are from that report. The main deficiency in the Rincon noise assessment is that it does not address the the impulsive sound produced by the impact of the pickleballs on the paddles. This is the primary source of noise objections for pickleball courts. While the document does refer to “noise from the ball hitting a racquet,” there is no analysis of this component of the sound. The conclusions are based exclusively on day-night level (Ldn) and measurements of equivalent-continuous sound pressure Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 11 of 16 level (Leq). These averaging metrics effectively remove the noise impact of impulsive sounds that have high peak sound pressures, but little energy, due to their short duration. This is not the way that human hearing perceives time variant sound. Noise Overview Lmax is the highest root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period [p. 2] This is true, but misses the point that Lmax uses a 125 ms time constant that is much longer than the duration of the paddle impact. It greatly attenuates the sound pressure level reading in comparison to the true maximum level found on a much shorter time scale. Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level [p. 4 and 5] This is not correct. The maximum instantaneous noise level is the absolute peak sound pressure level. Lmax is the maximum of a running average. In the case the pickleball paddle impacts, because of their short duration in comparison to the averaging time of the fast exponential time weighting filter used for Lmax, it may be as much as 21 dB less than the peak sound pressure level. In addition to the two definitions of Lmax in the quotes above contradicting each other, Lmax normally uses fast exponential time weighting, but the report says the meter was set to slow. It's not clear if that applies to the logged Lmax data as well. Both fast and slow time weighting are inappropriate for pickleball paddle impacts, although the slow setting (1 second time constant) would be much worse with an additional 9 dB of attenuation of the impulsive sound. Regulatory Framework The Town of Danville General Plan contains land use compatibility categories for community noise exposure, noise contour maps, and policies related to noise. [p. 2] CNEL as referenced in Figure 26 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Exterior Noise Levels and DNL as referenced in Policy 27.09 of the General Plan cannot be used to assess the noise impact of impulsive sound or for demonstrating compliance with the Danville Noise Ordinance. This has been discussed above. Ambient Noise Measurements ST-3 was conducted approximately 50 feet east of the existing pickleball courts while two games were underway on both monitoring days. [p. 3] Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 12 of 16 ST-3 is to the side of the pickleball courts in the direction of least acoustic radiation (compare to the directivity pattern in Figure 2 above). This data should not be used to project sound pressure levels at a distance. Pickleball courts are directional with most of the sound radiating in the direction of play. Sound radiated to the sides of the courts is typically 4 to 5 dB lower than in the direction of play. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 13 of 16 Figure 4. Measurement Location Near Existing Pickleball Courts [Figure 1 on p. 5, Perezalonso 2023] The sound level meter was set to “slow” response and “A” weighting (dBA). [p. 3] Impulsive sound should never be measured with slow exponential time weighting. Results 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. [p. 7] This is an underestimate of the sound pressure levels at the ends to the pickleball courts and should not be used to estimate sound levels at a distance. See comment above on court directivity. Leq is not an accurate measure of the impulsive sound of the paddle impacts. A worst-case scenario was modeled assuming that all pickleball courts and tennis courts were being used simultaneously. [p. 7] A single averaging measurement in the direction of lowest radiation is not a worst case scenario. The spreadsheet in Attachment A of the report seems to indicate that the each tennis court and pickleball court produce the same noise impact. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how to characterize and assess pickleball as a sound source. 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. [p. 7] As discussed above, this is not the worst case or an appropriate metric for assessing impulsive sound. 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. [p. 7] The conclusions that the noise impact of the ball and paddle impacts is less than significant and will not require any mitigation is not supported by the analysis performed in this report which neglects to consider the increased noise impact of impulsive sound and uses a measurement method that averages out the effects of this type of sound. Existing Natural Noise Mitigation Pictures taken at Osage Park indicate that there are berms on the west and south sides that vary in height. Many of the houses adjacent to the park are two story. As can be seen in Figure 5, the berm on the south side of the park is not high enough to shield the upper floors of the homes and will not constitute an effective noise mitigation measure. The same is true for the west side. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 14 of 16 Conclusions The addition of pickleball to a neighborhood represents a significant change in the amount of sound entering the surrounding area in comparison to other common recreational activities typically found at parks and recreation centers. This must be carefully planned for. The primary objectionable sound source on pickleball courts is the impulsive sound produced by the impact of the ball on the paddles. This component of the sound has not been analyzed or Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 15 of 16 Figure 5. View to South of Tennis Courts assessed in the Rincon noise impact assessment. The true noise impact of the proposed pickleball courts on the surrounding neighborhoods is unknown. Based on more than 10 years of experience with pickleball noise abatement, Spendiarian & Willis has found that noise mitigation is in most cases necessary at these distances from homes. The amount of noise abatement needed to mitigate the impulsive sound of the paddle impacts cannot be determined from the noise impact assessment prepared by Rincon or by using the CNEL and Ldn measures in the Danville General Plan. In summary, Spendiarian & Willis disagrees with the conclusion that no noise mitigation will be needed for the proposed pickleball courts at Osage Park and recommends a further noise impact assessment be preformed based on modern standards and best practices for assessment of impulsive sound such as ANSI S12.9 Part 4 or ISO 1996 Part 1. regards, R. Lance Willis, PhD Principle Acoustical Engineer References ANSI S12.9-2021, Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound – Part 4: Noise Assessment and Prediction of Long Term Community Response, American National Standards Institute, 2021. ISO 1996-1, Acoustics - Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise - Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures , International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2016. Perezalonso, Henry, Noise Study for the Osage Park Pickleball Project, Danville, California , Rincon Consultants, Oakland, California, September 8, 2023. Schultz, T. J., “Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America v. 64, pp. 377-405, 1978. World Health Organization, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, http://www.euro.who.int, 2009. Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC December 12, 2023 16 of 16 Attachment 2 1 Peak dB SPL of Various Firearms (5 Studies) (Compiled by James E. Lankford, 3/18/14) RIFLES dB SPLpk Winchester Model 70 (w/BOSS) 7mm Magnum 166.5 ∞Remington Model 742 .30-06 163.6 ᶺ Savage Model 110 (22” barrel) .30-06 163 Remington 742 carbine (18” barrel) .30-06 162.6 ∞ Steyer-Daimler Mannlicher .270 161.9 Remington 742 std (22” barrel) .30-06 161.6 ∞Browning X-Bolt .30-06 161.4 ∞Rossi Trifecta .243 160.6 ∞Winchester 94 .30-30 160.5 Ruger Model 1 .45-70 160.1 Thompson/Center Encore .50 (black powder) 159.7 ∞Winchester 70 XTR 7mm Mauser 159.2 M14 7.62 X 51mm (.308) 159.0 Colt AR-15 5.56 X 45mm (.223) 158.9 Auto-Ordinance Tommy Gun (w/comp) .45 ACP 151.0 ∞Marlin 917 VS .17 HMR 147.1 ∞Rossi Trifecta .22LR 143.8 ∞Ruger 10/22 .22LR 143.4 ∞Mossberg 702 .22LR 143.0 ᶺ Marlin Model 60 .22LR 141 ∞Remington 514 .22LR 139.6 2 PISTOLS dB SPLpk *Smith & Wesson 586 .357 169 ∞Ruger GP 100 .357 168.8 ∞Colt Anaconda .44 165.7 ѰItalian starter pistol 314 .22 blank 165.3 ∞Ruger GP 100 .38 164.7 ᶺ Smith & Wesson 686 (.357) .38 164 ᶺ Glock 17 9mm 163 *Sig Sauer P228 9mm 160 ∞Colt Anaconda .44 159.2 *Colt 1911-1A .45 ACP 159 *Glock 22 .40 159 ѰSmith & Wesson K-22 .22LR 158.1 .22 short 155.1 .22 blank 147.8 ∞Smith & Wesson LR CTG .22LR 157.9 ∞Ruger MK .22LR 157.5 Ruger Bearcat (4” barrel) .22LR 154.0 3 SHOTGUNS dB SPLpk ∞Remington 11-87 turkey 12 ga. (3” ammo) w/choke 161.5 Remington SP-10 magnum 10 ga. (3.5”ammo) 161.4 ∞Remington 11-87 turkey 12 ga. (3” ammo) w/o choke 161.0 ᶺ Beretta Gold Match AL391 12 ga. (hunting ammo) 161 12 ga. (target) 159 Remington 11-78 slug 12 ga. (3” ammo) 160.1 ∞Remington 870 12 ga. (2.75” ammo) 159.7 ∞Rossi Trifecta 20 ga. (2.75” ammo) 159.1 ∞New England SBI .410 (3” ammo) 157.5 Remington 11-87 turkey 12 ga. (3” ammo) 156.0 Remington 11-87 field 12 ga. (3” ammo) 156.1 12 ga. (2.75” ammo) 152.7 ∞Remington 870 12 ga. (2.75” ammo) 155.2 ∞Pietro Beretta 20 ga. (2.75” ammo) 154.2 ∞Mossberg 183KE .410 (3” ammo) 151.9 ∞Mossberg 183KE .410 (2.75” ammo) 151.8 Mossberg pump 20 ga. (2.75” ammo) 150.0 Mossberg bolt .410 (3” ammo) 149.1 .410 (2.75” ammo) 150.0 SOURCES: Data from: “Auditory Risk to Unprotected Bystanders Exposed to Firearm Noise.” Flamme, G. et.al. J Am Acad Audiology. 22: 93-103, 2011. Measures made 1 m left of shooter. * Data from Fig. 2: “Assessment of Noise Exposure for Indoor and Outdoor Firing Ranges.” Murphy, W. & Tubbs, R. J. Occupat. & Environ. Hygiene. 4: 688-697, 2007. Measures made 1 m left of shooter near mannequin. ᶺ Data from: “Estimates of auditory risk from Outdoor Impulse Noise II; Civilian Firearms.” Flamme, G. et.al. Noise & Health, 11: 45, 231-241, 2009. Measures made at shooter-side. Ѱ Data from: ”Comparison of Impulse Noise levels Generated by a .22 Caliber Starter Pistol and a .22 Revolver.” Sondergaard, J. et.al. Presented at 11th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN) 2011, London, UK. Measures made 5 cm left of ear-skull. ∞ Data from: “Auditory Risk Estimates for Youth Target Shooting.” Meinke, D. et.al. International Jo. of Audiology. 53: S16-S25, 2014. Measures made near left ear of shooter. Attachment 3 On the annoyance caused by impulse sounds produced by small, medium-large, and large firearms Joos Vos Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109, 244 (2001); doi: 10.1121/1.1327576 View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1327576 View Table of Contents: https://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/109/1 Published by the Acoustical Society of America ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN A- and C-weighted sound levels as predictors of the annoyance caused by shooting sounds, for various façade attenuation types The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113, 336 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1527957 A field study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military shooting noise The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 127, 2301 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3337234 A field survey on the annoyance caused by sounds from large firearms and road traffic The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104, 2890 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423911 Estimating parameter values in a model for rating shooting sounds from field survey data The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141, 864 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4976215 A field survey on annoyance caused by sounds from small firearms The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88, 1459 (1990); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.400341 Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64, 377 (1978); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.382013 On the annoyance caused by impulse sounds produced by small, medium-large, and large ﬁrearms a) Joos Vos TNO Human Factors, P.O. Box 23, 3769 ZG Soesterberg, The Netherlands ~Received 23 May 2000; accepted for publication 26 September 2000! A laboratory study was designed in which the annoyance was investigated for 14 different impulse sound types produced by various ﬁrearms ranging in caliber from 7.62 to 155 mm. Sixteen subjects rated the annoyance for the simulated conditions of ~1!being outdoors, and ~2!being indoors with the windows closed. In the latter case, a representative outdoor-to-indoor reduction in sound level was applied. It was anticipated that the presumed additional annoyance caused by the ‘‘heaviness’’ of the impulse sounds might be predicted from the difference between the C-weighted sound exposure level ~CSEL;L CE!and the A-weighted sound exposure level ~ASEL;L AE!. In the outdoor rating conditions, the annoyance was almost entirely determined by ASEL. The explained variance, r 2 , in the mean ratings by ASEL was 0.95. In the indoor rating conditions, however, the explained variance in the annoyance ratings by ~outdoor!ASEL was signiﬁcantly increased from r 2 5 0.87 to r 2 5 0.97 by adding the product (L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 a ) as a second variable. In combination with a 12-dB adjustment for small ﬁrearms, the present results showed that for the entire set of impulse sounds rated indoors with windows closed, the rating sound level,L r , is given by L r 5 L AE 1 12dB1 b (L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 a ), with a 5 45dB and b 5 0.015dB21. For the outdoor rating condition, the optimal parameter values were equal to a 5 57dB and, again,b 5 0.015dB21.In validation studies, in which the effects of the present rating procedure will be compared to ﬁeld data, it has to be determined to what extent the constants a and b have to be adjusted. ©2001 Acoustical Society of America.@DOI: 10.1121/1.1327576# PACS numbers: 43.50.Pn, 43.50.Ba, 43.50.Qp, 43.66.Lj @MRS# I. INTRODUCTION Determination of the rating sound level for shooting sounds produced at ﬁre ranges is complicated by the fact that, in general, the sounds may have been produced by a variety of ﬁrearms. From the results obtained in various ﬁeld and laboratory studies, it can be concluded that at least the sounds produced by small and large ﬁrearms cannot be rated in the same way. For impulse sounds produced by small ﬁrearms ~muzzle reports!, the annoyance has been investigated in many ﬁeld, laboratory, and quasiﬁeld studies. In a review of these stud- ies ~Vos, 1995a!, it has been shown that, overall, an adjust- ment of 12 dB has to be added to the ~outdoor!A-weighted sound exposure level ~ASEL;L AE!to equate the ASEL of the shooting sound to the ASEL of an equally annoying ve- hicle sound. For impulse sounds produced by large ﬁrearms, the number of studies in which the annoyance caused by the shooting sounds is directly compared with the annoyance caused by road-trafﬁc sounds is very limited. For simulated artillery ﬁre produced by blasting charges, the annoyance increases more rapidly with level than that caused by vehicle passby sounds ~Schomer, 1994; Schomer et al., 1994!. For such heavy bangs, the adjustment increases with level. With the level expressed as outdoor ASEL, the adjustment may extend to 20–30 dB. For impulse sounds produced by the relatively broad category of medium-large weapons ~calibers between 20 and 100–110 mm!, the information reported in the literature is very limited as well. For ﬁrearms with calibers of 20–35 mm, adjustments to ASEL between 13 and 16 dB have been found ~Buchta, 1994; Schomer and Wagner, 1995!. In a laboratory experiment, Meloni and Rosenheck ~1995!compared the annoyance caused by the ~muzzle! sounds from a 7.5-mm riﬂe, a 83-mm antitank missile, and a 155-mm howitzer. For the simulated condition of being in- doors with the windows open, the annoyance was determined by ASEL, regardless of whether the sounds were produced by the riﬂe, the antitank missile, or the howitzer. For the simulated condition of being indoors with the windows closed, the data imply that at equal outdoor ASELs, the an- noyance caused by the howitzer sounds was higher than that of the other two sound types, and that this difference in- creased with increasing ASEL. Again, no signiﬁcant differ- ences were obtained between the ratings for the riﬂe and antitank missile sounds, suggesting that at least for these categories a ﬁxed single adjustment would sufﬁce. For lack of detailed information about the annoyance caused by medium-large weapon sounds, a laboratory study was designed in which the annoyance was investigated for 14 different impulse sound types produced by various ﬁre- arms ranging in caliber from 7.62 to 155 mm. In addition to an overall effect of sound level, it was expected that the annoyance would increase with ﬁrearm caliber. A possible predictor for the presumed additional annoyance caused by the ‘‘heaviness’’ of the impulse sounds might be the differ- a!Preliminary results of the present research were presented at Internoise ’96, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 30 July–2 August 1996, and are included in the Proceedings, Book 5, pp. 2231–2236. 244 244J. Acoust. Soc. Am.109 (1), January 2001 0001-4966/2001/109(1)/244/10/$18.00 © 2001 Acoustical Society of America ence (L CE2 L AE) between the C-weighted sound exposure level ~CSEL;L CE!and ASEL ~Buchta, 1996; Krahe ´and Buchta, 1994!. For more continuous sounds at several work places, Kjellberg et al.~1997!showed that addition of the difference between the ~indoor!C- and A-weighted average levels resulted in a small but signiﬁcant increase in the pre- dictability of the annoyance. In the present experiment the various ﬁrearms were selected in such a way that for the entire range of L CE –L AE ~from 21 to about 30 dB!, a bal- anced distribution of the number of events was obtained. Sixteen subjects rated the annoyance for the simulated con- ditions of ~1!being outdoors, and ~2!being indoors with the windows closed. Since the outdoor-to-indoor reduction in sound level is highly dependent on frequency, and the sounds to be rated varied considerably in spectral content, inclusion of these two listening conditions was considered to be very relevant. II. METHODS A. Stimuli In addition to muzzle bangs produced by small ~impulse types 1, 2, and 3 in Table I!, medium-large ~impulse types 6 and 10!, and large ﬁrearms ~impulse types 12, 13, and 14!, the experiment also included combinations of muzzle and projectile bangs ~impulse types 5, 8, and 9!and spectral modiﬁcations of the 155-mm howitzer muzzle bang ~impulse types 4, 7, and 11!. For the relevant impulse types, digital recordings ~sampling rate 48 kHz, amplitude resolution 16 bits!were made at source–receiver distances ranging from 100–200 m for the small ﬁrearms to 800–900 m for the medium-large and large ﬁrearms. Larger recording distances would have resulted in poor signal-to-noise ratios. The recorded sounds were sampled down to 16.1 kHz and stored as ﬁles on the hard disk of a personal computer. Various versions of the impulse sound were prepared from each recording. For the outdoor rating condition there were four such versions per impulse type, yielding 56 ~14 types34 levels!different impulses. The ~outdoor!ASELs ranged from 40 to 70 dB. The corresponding sound quality of the im- pulses, which is among other things dependent on the dis- tance between the source and the receiver, was simulated both by broadband attenuation ~geometric spreading!and by attenuation of the high-frequency components ~air absorp- tion!. The phase relations in the various impulse type ver- sions were not affected. To simulate the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction in the indoor rating condition ~windows closed!, a further spectral reduction of the impulses was equal to 13 dB for the 16-Hz and 31.5-Hz octave bands, and linearly increased from 13 dB for the latter octave band up to 35 dB for the 8-kHz octave band. The adopted ~rather con- servative!frequency-dependent fac¸ade attenuation was based on the outdoor-to-indoor airborne noise reduction character- istics for various kinds of single- and double-glazed win- dows that might be regarded as typical for Dutch dwellings ~Brackenhoff et al., 1981!. Within a few decibels, such a reduction was also found to be representative of houses lo- cated in the greater Washington, DC area ~Yaniv et al., 1982!. In some countries, such as in Switzerland, application of special window glazing might, at least for frequencies higher than about 50 Hz, result in higher sound-level reduc- tions ~Meloni and Rosenheck, 1995!. The attenuation of the signals ~geometric spreading, air absorption, and fac¸ade reduction!was performed with the help of a ﬁnite impulse response ~FIR!ﬁlter on a DSP card. The ﬁlter was also used to compensate, as much as possible, for both the resonances due to room dimensions and the nonﬂat frequency characteristics of the loudspeakers and the audio chain. At the subject’s listening position, the response was ﬂat within 3–5 dB over a frequency range from 25 to 4000 Hz. For the set of 56 impulses presented in the outdoor rat- ing condition, 21 impulses were not or were hardly audible after application of the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction. As a result, the number of impulses included in the indoor rating condition was reduced to 35. TABLE I. Description of the sources that produced the various impulse types. M5muzzle bang, P5projectile bang, R5reﬂection. The slope of the high-pass ~HP!ﬁlter was equal to 218 dB/octave. The ‘‘effective’’ signal duration was measured at the ears of the subjects. The rise time was determined for free-ﬁeld ~recording!and for indoor ~room!conditions. No. Firearm/ammunition Component Modiﬁcation Signal duration ~ms! Rise time ~ms! Recording Room 1 Pistol 9 mm M ﬂ 260 ,16 2 Riﬂe 7.62 mm M ﬂ 340 1 15 3 Riﬂe 0.30 in. M ﬂ 430 ,1 10–50 4 Howitzer 155 mm, charge 5M4 M HP 315 Hz 200 4 5 5 Cannon 25 mm DST 127 P, M ﬂ 190 5 a 15a 6 Machine gun 0.5 in. M ﬂ 360 2 10–40 7 Howitzer 155 mm, charge 5M4 M HP 100 Hz 500 4 5 8 Cannon 35 mm P, M, R ﬂ 220 ,1a 6a 9 Cannon 35 mm P, M ﬂ 140 8 a 10a 10 Cannon 35 mm M ﬂ 430 ,18 11 Howitzer 155 mm, charge 5M4 M HP 63 Hz 460 16 85 12 Hand grenade detonation ﬂ 380 22 80 13 Antitank weapon 84 mm M ﬂ 410 15 70 14 Howitzer 155 mm, charge 5M4 M ﬂ 370 15 70 aRise times for the projectile bang. 245 245J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds Figure 1 shows the linear sound exposure level ~SEL!in the various 1/3-octave bands for the four versions of the muzzle bang from a 9-mm pistol, a 0.5-in. machine gun, a 35-mm cannon, and a 155-mm howitzer, as determined at the ears of the subjects in the outdoor rating condition. Espe- cially for the pistol bangs @Fig. 1~a!#presented at relatively high overall levels ~L AE equal to 60 and 70 dB!, the spectral content is dominated by the energy in the frequency bands between about 800 and 2500 Hz, whereas for all howitzer bangs @Fig. 1~d!#, the spectral content is dominated by the energy in frequency bands between about 20 and 100 Hz. For frequencies lower than 25 Hz, the sound levels of the howitzer bangs drop by about 35 dB/octave. Results from outdoor measurements reported in Kerry et al.~1996!, show that for a similar bang produced by a 155-mm howitzer, the sound level in this low-frequency band drops by about 6 dB/octave. The discrepancy between our spectra and those reported by Kerry et al.~1996!might for a relevant part be explained by the limitations of our audio system noted above. For the machine gun @Fig. 1~b!#and the 35-mm cannon @Fig. 1~c!#, the spectrum contains both lower and higher fre- quency components at a signiﬁcant sound level. For all im- pulse types, Fig. 1 also shows that due to air absorption, the relative contribution of the higher frequency components de- creases with overall level. The rise time of the impulses, deﬁned as the time inter- val necessary for the sound to increase from 10% to 90% of the maximum amplitude, as measured at the ears of the sub- jects, varied from 5 ms for the relatively light bangs to about 80 ms for the heavy bangs ~last column in Table I!. For impulse types 3 and 6, the exact rise time could not be de- termined. For bangs with multiple components ~impulse types 5, 8, and 9!only the rise time of the ﬁrst component, which was the projectile bang in all cases, could be mea- sured. In general, the rise time strongly depended on the measurement position in the room. In free-ﬁeld conditions the rise times were considerably shorter ~see the next-to-last column in Table I!. The sound quality of the impulse sounds was improved by fading out the signals after the ﬁrst 500–1500 ms. The ‘‘effective’’ signal duration, deﬁned here as the time interval between the moments at which the temporal envelope was higher than 10% of the maximum amplitude, ranged from about 150 to 500 ms ~Table I!. Various experts from the Ministry of Defense, who had been working on infantry or artillery ﬁring ranges, conﬁrmed that the bangs sounded realistic. This held true also for the heavy bangs produced by the hand grenade, the 84-mm an- titank weapon, and the 155-mm howitzer. Given that for fre- quencies higher than 25 Hz the frequency response was ﬂat, it is not a priori evident that our experimental results would have been different if we had been able to reproduce the sound levels reported in Kerry et al.~1996!for frequencies lower than 25 Hz. In order to make the acoustic environment more realistic as well, a background noise of remote road trafﬁc was con- tinuously present throughout the experiment at an A-weighted average level of 35 and 40 dB in the indoor and the outdoor conditions, respectively. In both conditions, the spectral content was dominated by energy in the frequency range between 25 and 125 Hz. For higher frequencies, the spectral envelope slope was 27 dB/octave in the outdoor, and 29 dB/octave in the indoor condition. B. Apparatus The experiment was entirely computer controlled. The sounds were reproduced in the listening room (w3 1 3 h 5 3.53 5.93 3.3m) by means of two ampliﬁer/speaker sets, one set for frequencies lower than, and one set for frequen- cies higher than 150 Hz. The speakers were hidden behind a curtain. The reverberation time of the room corresponded to that of a normal living room. Hearing thresholds were deter- mined with the help of a Madsen Memory Threshold Audi- ometer ~MTA 86!. C. Subjects Sixteen subjects, nine males and seven females, between 18 and 27 years of age, participated in the experiment. Be- FIG. 1. Sound exposure levels in the various 1/3-octave bands for the muzzle bang from ~a!a 9-mm pistol;~b!a 0.5-in. machine gun;~c!a 35-mm cannon; and ~d!a 155-mm howitzer, as determined at the ears of the sub- jects in the simulated outdoor condition. For each im- pulse type, the four spectra correspond to overall ASELs of 40, 50, 60, or 70 dB. 246 246J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds fore the experimental sessions, their hearing thresholds were determined with pure tones between 250 and 8000 Hz. Thir- teen subjects had hearing levels <15 dB in any part of the audiogram ~best ears!. Three subjects with hearing levels <5 dB for frequencies up to 4000 Hz had local hearing losses of 20–25 dB at 6000 Hz. Since frequencies higher than 4000 Hz were considered to be irrelevant to the present study, these three subjects were regarded as suitable participants. The subjects were paid for their services. D. Experimental design The independent variables were:~1!listening condition ~acoustic simulation of an outdoor situation such as in the garden or on the balcony or terrace, versus a simulation of an indoor situation with the windows closed!;~2!impulse type ~14 types produced by ﬁrearms ranging in caliber from 7.62 to 155 mm; see Table I!;~3!sound level ~outdoor ASELs of 40, 50, 60, or 70 dB!. In Sec. IIA, it was explained that with respect to sound level, we have an incomplete factorial de- sign. All three factors were varied within subjects. Each of the 56 outdoor and 35 indoor conditions was presented twice for rating. E. Procedure Eight subjects started with the outdoor condition and the other eight started with the indoor condition. After each trial, in which a speciﬁc stimulus was presented twice within about 8 s, the subjects responded to the question ‘‘How an- noying would you ﬁnd the sound if you heard it at home @~a! in the garden or on the balcony, or ~b!in the living room, workroom, or study with the windows closed#on a regular basis?’’ They were encouraged to use the whole range of the rating scale with values from 1 ~‘‘not annoying at all’’!to 10 ~‘‘extremely annoying’’!. The 56 stimuli in the outdoor condition were assigned to four blocks of 14 stimuli each. Both for the ﬁrst and for the second ratings, presentation order of these blocks was bal- anced by means of Latin squares. The 35 stimuli in the in- door condition were assigned to two blocks which were again presented twice, and in a balanced order. Presentation order of the stimuli within the blocks was randomized. Be- fore the experimental sessions, the subjects received six practice trials. The total duration of the experimental session was about 4 h, including breaks in between. The background noise was continuously present without interruption. III. RESULTS The annoyance ratings will ﬁrst be related to ASEL and, for the sake of comparison, to CSEL of the impulses. In the indoor rating condition, the annoyance will be related to in- door levels and, since in noise zoning it is mandatory to express the noise dose as levels measured outdoors, also to the corresponding outdoor levels. A. Outdoor ratings The annoyance ratings were subjected to an analysis of variance @16 ~subjects!3 14 ~impulse type!3 4 ~sound level!3 2 ~replication!, all repeated measures#. The proce- dure for the analysis of data collected in such a repeated measures design, as well as the meaning of the F tests, the relevant degrees of freedom df1 and df2 @ F (df1 ,df2 )#, and the estimated level of signiﬁcance (p ), is described in, for ex- ample, Keppel ~1973!. The ratings signiﬁcantly 1 increased with increasing ASEL @F (3,45)5 620,p ,0.000001#and were signiﬁcantly affected by impulse type @F (13,195) 5 10.5,p ,0.000001#.Apost hoc Tukey test ~Winer, 1970! showed that averaged across sound level, the bangs from impulse types 1, 3, 6, 7, 11–14 were all more annoying than the bangs from impulse types 8 and 9 (p <0.05). Moreover, there was a signiﬁcant interaction effect between impulse type and sound level @F (39,585)5 8.2,p ,0.000001#:At low ASELs the impulses produced by small ﬁrearms were more annoying than those produced by medium-large and large ﬁrearms, whereas at high ASELs the impulses pro- duced by the small ﬁrearms were less annoying than those produced by the large ﬁrearms. This interaction effect is shown in Fig. 2~a!, where the ratings, averaged across subjects and replications, are plotted as a function of outdoor ASEL for 8 of the 14 impulse types. On the basis of the mean annoyance ratings given in columns 2–5 of Table II, it can be veriﬁed that the nature of the interaction effect described above also holds for the im- pulse types that were not included in Fig. 2~a!. For the total set of 56 impulses, 95% of the variance in the mean ratings could be explained by ASEL. From the data shown in Fig. 2~b!, it can be concluded that, relative to ASEL, outdoor CSEL is an inadequate predictor of the an- FIG. 2. Mean annoyance ratings in the outdoor condi- tion, as a function of ~a!outdoor ASEL and ~b!outdoor CSEL, for various impulse sound types. 247 247J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds noyance. For the total set, the portion of the variance in the mean ratings explained by ~outdoor!CSEL was as small as 54%. Table III shows the outdoor CSELs for the 56 condi- tions. B. Indoor ratings as a function of outdoor levels The annoyance ratings were subjected to two analyses of variance. In the ﬁrst analysis, the ratings given for the 14 impulse types that were presented at outdoor ASELs of 60 and 70 dB were included. In the second analysis, only the ratings given for impulse types 8–14 were included; in this case all three outdoor ASELs could be considered. In both analyses, the ratings signiﬁcantly increased with increasing ASEL @in the ﬁrst analysis F (1,15)5 272, in the second analysis F (2,30)5 340; in both cases p ,0.000001#. Again, there was a signiﬁcant effect of impulse type @in the ﬁrst analysis F (13,195)5 20.1, in the second analysis F (6,90) 5 20.2; in both cases p ,0.000001#. Two post hoc Tukey tests showed that averaged across sound level, the bangs from impulse types 1–6, 8, and 9 were signiﬁcantly less annoying (p ,0.01) than the bangs from impulse types 11–14. Again, there was a signiﬁcant effect between impulse type and sound level @in the ﬁrst analysis F (13,195)5 2.8, p ,0.002; in the second analysis F (12,180)5 8.2,p ,0.000001#. As shown in Fig. 3~a!for 8 of the 14 impulse types, the increase in the annoyance with outdoor ASEL was larger for the impulses produced by the large ﬁrearms than for those produced by the smaller ﬁrearms. On the basis of the mean annoyance ratings given in columns 6–8 of Table II, it can be veriﬁed that the nature of the interaction effect just de- scribed also holds for the impulse types that were not in- cluded in Fig. 3~a!. For the total set of 35 impulses, 87% of the variance in the mean ratings could be explained by outdoor ASEL. From the data shown in Fig. 3~b!, it must again be concluded that outdoor CSEL is less effective as a predictor of the annoy- ance. For the total set, the portion of the variance in the mean ratings explained by outdoor CSEL was only 50%. C. Indoor ratings as a function of indoor levels For eight impulse types, Fig. 4~a!shows the mean in- door annoyance ratings as a function of indoor ASEL deter- mined at the ears of the subjects. For equal indoor ASELs the impulses produced by the smaller ﬁrearms were more annoying than those produced by the medium-large and large ﬁrearms. Columns 2–4 of Table IV list the indoor ASELs for the various outdoor levels and the 14 impulse types. For the total set of the 35 impulses, 88% of the variance in the mean ratings could be explained by indoor ASEL. From the data shown in Fig. 4~b!, it must be concluded that indoor CSEL is a less effective predictor of the annoy- ance than indoor ASEL. For the total set, the portion of the variance in the mean ratings explained by outdoor CSEL was as small as 33%. FIG. 3. Mean annoyance ratings in the indoor condition, as a function of ~a! outdoor ASEL and ~b!outdoor CSEL, for various impulse sound types. TABLE II. Annoyance ratings, averaged across subjects and replications, for the 14 impulse types, and the outdoor measured ASELs ~dB!in the two listening conditions. Impulse type no. Listening condition Outdoors Indoors ASEL: 40 50 60 70 50 60 70 1 2.6 3.8 5.7 8.5 ﬂ 3.4 5.6 2 1.9 3.1 5.5 8.2 ﬂ 3.0 5.9 3 2.0 3.6 6.2 8.7 ﬂ 3.7 6.5 4 1.8 3.3 5.1 8.1 ﬂ 3.2 5.5 5 1.4 2.8 5.1 8.0 ﬂ 3.4 5.9 6 1.7 3.4 6.0 8.7 ﬂ 3.7 6.7 7 1.3 3.5 6.1 8.6 ﬂ 4.2 7.3 8 1.3 2.7 4.9 7.9 1.5 3.4 5.9 9 1.0 2.4 4.7 7.4 1.0 3.3 5.8 10 1.1 2.8 5.7 8.3 1.2 3.7 7.1 11 1.2 3.2 6.4 9.0 1.7 4.6 7.7 12 0.9 2.8 6.4 9.3 1.6 4.6 8.1 13 1.1 2.9 6.8 9.1 1.6 5.2 7.9 14 0.9 3.6 7.1 9.3 1.8 5.2 8.3 TABLE III. Outdoor CSEL for the 56 conditions included in the experi- ment. Impulse type no. Outdoor ASEL 40 50 60 70 1 43.5 51.1 59.9 69.5 2 49.2 56.1 64.3 73.6 3 52.5 60.4 68.7 77.8 4 46.4 55.4 64.7 73.9 5 59.0 64.7 71.0 78.1 6 55.4 63.0 70.7 79.2 7 61.2 67.3 73.6 80.3 8 55.4 62.1 70.1 78.8 9 59.9 65.1 71.7 79.3 10 61.3 67.9 75.5 83.4 11 65.9 73.4 80.3 86.8 12 68.0 77.3 86.4 95.2 13 69.0 78.5 87.7 96.1 14 68.9 77.6 85.1 92.3 248 248J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds IV. FEATURES OF A NEW RATING PROCEDURE FOR A GREAT VARIETY OF SHOOTING SOUNDS A. The additional adjustment for heavy bangs To obtain ASEL of equally annoying vehicle sounds, ASEL for impulse sounds produced by small ﬁrearms (L CE 2 L AE;0 dB) has to be increased by an adjustment of 12 dB ~Vos, 1995a!. Since at the relevant receiver points the differ- ences between the spectra for the sounds from small ﬁrearms and the spectra for ~local!road-trafﬁc sounds are relatively small, the 12-dB adjustment holds both for indoor ~windows closed or opened!and for outdoor rating conditions ~Schomer et al., 1994; Schomer and Wagner, 1995; Vos, 1995a!. Both in the outdoor and in the indoor rating conditions, signiﬁcant interaction effects between impulse type and sound level were found ~Sec. III!. Consequently, for rating shooting sounds in general, in addition to the 12-dB adjust- ment, a second level-dependent adjustment is required. This latter adjustment will now be quantiﬁed on the basis of the results of the present experiment. 1. Indoor ratings as a function of outdoor levels The maximum size of the second adjustment is shown in Fig. 5~a!, where the indoor ratings are plotted as a function of outdoor ASEL for the three heavier ﬁrearms ~impulse types 12–14!, with the ratings for the pistol as a reference. With respect to the difference between outdoor CSEL and outdoor ASEL, the bangs produced by these heavier ﬁrearms were clearly distinct from the other bangs: For L AE 5 50dB,L CE2 L AE.27dB, and for L AE5 70dB,L CE 2 L AE.22dB ~see Table III!. These values of L CE2 L AE are comparable to those predicted by Hirsch ~1998!. In addition to equally high values of L CE2 L AE , the bangs from these heavier ﬁrearms also yielded about the same indoor annoyance ratings ~y!at comparable ASELs: the regression line ﬁtted to the data (y 5214.41 0.322L AE) ex- plains 99% of the variance in the mean ratings. Relative to the dose-response relation for the pistol bangs (y 529.8 1 0.22L AE), the additional adjustment for the heavier bangs increases from 5 dB at an outdoor ASEL of about 51 to 10 dB at an outdoor ASEL of 66 dB. The general equation for the additional adjustment,P a in decibel, follows from the slopes and intercepts of the two functions, and is given by P a 5220.821 0.464L AE ,orP a 5 0.46(L AE2 45) dB. 2. Outdoor ratings The outdoor ratings for the bangs from the three heavier ﬁrearms and the pistol are shown in Fig. 5~b!. Again, the annoyance caused by the heavier bangs is well predicted by a single regression line. The equation of the function is given by y 5210.641 0.285L AE ,r 2 5 0.98. Relative to the func- tion for the pistol bangs ~y 525.631 0.196L AE ;r 2 5 0.97!, the additional adjustment for the heavier bangs increases FIG. 4. Mean annoyance ratings in the indoor condi- tion, as a function of ~a!indoor ASEL and ~b!indoor CSEL, for various impulse sound types. FIG. 5. Mean annoyance ratings as a function of outdoor ASEL for the bangs from the three heavier ﬁrearms ~impulse types 12–14!and the bangs from the pistol as references. Inserted solid lines are regression functions. ~a!Indoor ratings;~b!outdoor ratings. TABLE IV. Indoor ASELs and CSELs, as determined at the ears of the subjects, for impulse type and outdoor ASEL. Impulse type no. ASEL ~dB!CSEL ~dB! ASEL: 50 60 70 50 60 70 1 ﬂ 30.6 40.1 ﬂ 36.9 45.4 2 ﬂ 33.8 43.3 ﬂ 44.7 53.9 3 ﬂ 35.9 45.2 ﬂ 50.9 59.8 4 ﬂ 36.1 45.4 ﬂ 41.9 50.6 5 ﬂ 37.6 46.5 ﬂ 55.4 61.6 6 ﬂ 37.5 46.3 ﬂ 53.0 61.2 7 ﬂ 38.4 47.0 ﬂ 58.0 64.1 8 29.2 38.7 48.1 46.2 52.8 60.5 9 29.5 38.7 47.9 50.3 56.0 62.2 10 30.8 39.8 48.8 53.2 60.4 67.9 11 33.0 40.8 48.7 58.9 65.7 72.0 12 35.2 44.5 53.6 63.3 72.2 81.1 13 35.6 45.1 53.8 64.6 73.8 82.2 14 34.7 42.8 50.8 63.6 71.2 78.4 249 249J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds from 25 dB at an outdoor ASEL of 45 to 15dBatan outdoor ASEL of 68 dB. The general equation is given by P a 5 0.45(L AE2 56.5) dB. 3. A comparison of the results obtained in the two rating conditions Figure 6 shows the additional adjustment for the heavier bangs as a function of outdoor ASEL for the indoor and outdoor rating conditions, separately. The additional adjust- ment for the heavier bangs is consistently 5 dB lower for the outdoor than for the indoor conditions. For L AE,57dB in the outdoor rating condition, the additional adjustment is smaller than 0 dB, yielding an overall adjustment that is smaller than the 12-dB penalty for the impulses from small ﬁrearms. At an outdoor ASEL of 40 dB, outdoor listeners are still able to hear the impulse sounds. With respect to the annoyance, however, the overall adjustment to ASEL is re- duced to 5 dB. For the indoor rating conditions, negative additional ad- justments are not relevant, because in general, bangs from large ﬁrearms with an outdoor L AE,45dB are either inau- dible or result in a sensation that is too low to elicit an annoyance reaction. B. Determination of the rating sound level for single events 1. Indoor ratings In Sec. IVA1, it was shown that for the bangs from the large ﬁrearms, the additional adjustment was equal to P a 5 0.46(L AE2 45) dB. For these bangs,L CE2 L AE was 28.5 dB at the maximum ~see Table III, columns 3–5!. For bangs with lower values of L CE2 L AE , the additional adjustment must be smaller. Lower adjustments might be obtained by introducing the term (L CE2 L AE)/max(LCE2 L AE). With maximum L CE2 L AE set to the rounded ﬁgure of 30 dB, the equation reduces to P a 5 0.015(L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 45) dB. The validity of this modiﬁcation is demonstrated by means of a multiple linear regression analysis performed on the 35 mean indoor ratings ~dependent variable!and on cor- responding outdoor ASELs and products of CSEL-ASEL and ASEL as predictors. With ASEL,r 2 was equal to 87%. With (L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 45) added as the second predictor, ~multiple!r 2 increased to 97%. Statistically, this increase of 10 percent points in the explained variance was highly sig- niﬁcant (p ,0.000001). The rating sound level for any single impulsive event is given by L r 5 L AE1 12dB1 b ~L CE2 L AE!~L AE2 a !dB,~1! in which a 5 45dB and b 5 0.015dB21. Figure 7~a!shows the indoor annoyance ratings as a function of the proposed rating sound level for all 35 im- pulses. As expected, the solid regression line included in Fig. 7~a!explained 97% of the variance in the annoyance ratings. With a perfect rating procedure, all data points were to co- incide the regression line. Expressed as decibel values, the root-mean-square of the differences between the obtained rating sound level and the rating sound level predicted by the regression line for the same annoyance rating was as small as 1.6 dB. 2. Outdoor ratings In Sec. IVA2, it was shown that for the bangs from the large ﬁrearms, the additional adjustment was equal to P a 5 0.45(L AE2 56.5) dB. In line with the procedure described for the indoor ratings, the additional adjustment is given by P a 5 0.015(L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 56.5) dB. In Sec. IIIA it had already been shown that 95% of the variance in the mean ratings could be explained by ASEL. By means of a multiple linear regression analysis performed on the 56 mean outdoor ratings (L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 56.5) was added as a second predictor. The explained variance in- creased from 95% to 96%. The small increase of 1 percent point was statistically signiﬁcant (p ,0.001). The rating sound level for any single impulsive event is given by Eq.~1!with a and b set to 56.5 and 0.015 dB 21, respectively. Figure 7~b!shows the outdoor annoyance rat- ings as a function of the proposed rating sound level for all 56 impulses. Expressed as decibel values, the root-mean- square of the differences between the obtained rating sound level and the rating sound level predicted by the regression line for the same annoyance rating was 2.8 dB. FIG. 6. Additional adjustments for the heavier bangs, as a function of out- door ASEL for the indoor and outdoor rating conditions, separately. FIG. 7. Mean annoyance ratings as a function of the rating sound level. Inserted lines are regression functions.~a!Indoor ratings;~b!outdoor rat- ings. 250 250J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds V. DISCUSSION A. Integration of the results for the indoor and outdoor rating conditions In Sec. IV, it was shown that the additional adjustment for the heavier bangs was consistently 5 dB lower for the outdoor than for the indoor rating conditions. At present, detailed information about the extent to which the overall annoyance is determined by indoor and outdoor experienced annoyance is lacking. The relation between indoor and outdoor annoyance has been researched in laboratory or quasilaboratory studies, in which the sounds were produced by subsonic ~Robinson et al., 1963; Bishop, 1966; Bowsher et al., 1966; Kryter, 1970; Gunn et al., 1981!or supersonic aircraft ~Kryter, 1970; Johnson and Robinson, 1966!, and by light-heavy vehicles ~Watts and Nelson, 1993; Vos, 1997a!. The indoor annoy- ance was always lower than the outdoor annoyance, provided that the outdoor sound levels were the same. Field surveys on the annoyance caused by railway ~Peeters et al., 1984!or road-trafﬁc sounds ~Myncke et al., 1977!showed that the annoyance was lower with the windows closed than with the windows open. In most studies, however, the differences were smaller than what would be expected on the basis of the fac¸ade at- tenuation. This may imply that the listeners were more tol- erant of the sounds in outdoor than in indoor conditions. For the various laboratory studies, the estimated difference in tolerance ranged from 0 dB ~Gunn et al., 1981!up to 15–18 dB ~Robinson et al., 1963; Bishop, 1966!. Since the results may have been affected by the range of both the levels of the sounds and the response scale used by the listeners ~Poulton, 1989!, it is impossible to estimate the differences precisely. In ﬁeld surveys it is less likely that range effects will inﬂuence the results. In the ﬁeld study on the annoyance caused by railway noise ~outdoor A-weighted equivalent level,L Aeq , between 40 and 70 dB!, the respondents were more tolerant of the sounds as heard indoors with the win- dows open than as heard indoors with the windows closed ~Peeters et al., 1984!. For outdoor L Aeq,70dB, comparable results were obtained in the ﬁeld study on the annoyance caused by road-trafﬁc sounds ~Myncke et al., 1977!. For very high outdoor levels (70,L Aeq,80dB) included in the latter study, such differences in tolerance could not be ob- served. In the ﬁeld survey reported by Myncke et al.~1977!, the respondents were also asked to rate their overall annoyance. Both for the respondents in Antwerp and for those in Brus- sels, the overall annoyance was in between the annoyance rated in the conditions with closed and the conditions with open windows. This indicates that the overall annoyance was determined by both conditions. A comparable result was ob- tained in a ﬁeld survey reported by Birnie et al.~1980!. From multiple linear regression analyses performed on annoyance ratings for aircraft and road-trafﬁc sounds, they concluded that both the outdoor and the indoor ratings signiﬁcantly con- tributed to the overall annoyance. Unfortunately, they did not give ﬁnal regression weights for the two rating conditions. If the annoyance in the indoor and outdoor conditions would contribute equally to the overall annoyance, then the intercept of the appropriate function for the additional adjust- ment to the heavier bangs should be 1.8 dB lower @ 10log(0.5 100/101 0.5 102 5/10)521.8dB#than the func- tion for the indoor rating condition ~Fig. 6!, which results in a change of a in Eq.~1!from 45 to 49 dB. If the relative contribution of the annoyance in the indoor and outdoor con- ditions to the overall annoyance would be equal to 3:1, then the appropriate value for a would be 47 dB. B. Future research topics Especially for the shooting sounds produced by medium-large and large ﬁrearms, there have been various discussions about which acoustic measure, or which fre- quency weighting, would be more appropriate, ASEL or CSEL ~Buchta, 1996; Bullen et al., 1991; Meloni and Rosen- heck, 1995; Schomer, 1977; Schomer and Sias, 1998; Vos, 1995b!. The present results led to an efﬁcient and general method for rating shooting sounds:~1!there is no need to develop separate procedures for different categories of ﬁre- arm calibers, and ~2!both ASEL and CSEL are needed for an adequate prediction of the annoyance. Although the present study adopts ~outdoor!ASEL as the principal predictor of annoyance, the experimental results show that inclusion of ~outdoor!CSEL results in a small improvement of the prediction of the annoyance for outdoor rating conditions ~see Sec. IVB2!, and in a large improve- ment of the prediction of the annoyance for indoor rating conditions ~see Sec. IVB1!. The beneﬁt of using both A-weighted and C-weighted sound levels ~either measured with the time constant of 125 ms, or expressed as sound exposure levels!has also been shown by Buchta ~1996!for explaining differences in the annoyance caused by the impulses produced by riﬂes, 20– 35-mm cannons, and various detonations, and by Schomer and Sias ~1998!for explaining differences in the annoyance caused by sonic booms and blast sounds. To explore the general validity of the proposed rating procedure, and to enhance its applicability, a number of top- ics must be investigated in the future. Three topics will be discussed brieﬂy below. 1. Determination of the appropriate a- and b values in validation studies In the present laboratory study, the predictability of the annoyance was considerably enhanced by adding b (L CE 2 L AE)(L AE2 a ) as a second predictor. In ﬁeld surveys, such a functional relationship between annoyance and the two acoustic measures could never have been found, simply be- cause in the ﬁeld ~a!the respondents are required to give annoyance ratings on the basis of relatively long periods of time, and ~b!the stimulus conditions to which they respond are usually very complex. However, it remains to be seen to what extent the values of a, and more importantly, the value of b, as estimated on the basis of the laboratory results, may be applied for obtaining the adequate rating sound level. Re- 251 251J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds call the general aim that numerically equal rating sound lev- els for shooting and road-trafﬁc sounds should correspond to a similar degree of community response. As mentioned in the previous section, the annoyance score obtained in the laboratory for a speciﬁc stimulus may be affected at least in part by the range of the stimulus levels and by the range of the response scale used ~Poulton, 1989!. As a result, these annoyance ratings cannot simply be inter- preted in an absolute way. Recently, the relevance of com- paring the effects of procedures developed on the basis of laboratory or quasilaboratory study results has been demon- strated for the community response to high-energy impulsive sounds. With the sound levels determined in free-ﬁeld con- ditions, application of Schomer’s level-dependent conversion procedure ~Schomer, 1994!might lead to an underestimation of the rating sound level for artillery sounds by about 15 dB ~Vos, 1997b, 2000; Buchta and Vos, 1998, 1999; Schomer, 1999!. For rating impulse sounds produced by small ﬁre- arms, however, the discrepancy between the average impulse noise adjustments derived from ﬁeld and laboratory studies was not greater than about 3 dB ~Vos, 1995a!. It might be further hypothesized that the poor ﬁt be- tween the laboratory and ﬁeld data, as noted for artillery sounds, is in part related to the heightened annoyance re- sponse to the impulsive sounds heard during the night: The subjective effects due to nighttime shooting are included in the community response determined in ﬁeld surveys, but to the knowledge of the present author, these effects have not really been included in the pertinent laboratory studies. The much better ﬁt between the laboratory and ﬁeld data for im- pulse sounds from small ﬁrearms can be understood from the fact that at the small ﬁrearm ranges included in the various ﬁeld surveys, nighttime shooting occurred rarely if ever. For a validation of the present procedure, detailed infor- mation about receiver levels ~both ASEL and CSEL!of all relevant shooting sounds in various meteorological condi- tions, and, preferably for the same respondents, the A-weighted equivalent level of road-trafﬁc sounds, is needed. If the corresponding community response is based on overall ratings, the problem raised in Sec. VA about the relative importance of the annoyance experienced indoors and outdoors may be avoided. 2. Exploring the usefulness of the rating procedure for other fac¸ade attenuation characteristics Only in the indoor rating conditions was the predictabil- ity of the annoyance considerably enhanced by adding b (L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 a ) as a second predictor. The simulated frequency-dependent fac¸ade attenuation represented the av- erage of noise reduction characteristics that is frequently found for Dutch dwellings with the windows closed ~Sec. IIA!. It is of interest to verify the relevance of the second predictor both for lower and higher fac¸ade attenuation types. Lower outdoor-to-indoor noise reductions are relevant to residents who prefer their bedroom windows slightly opened for the major part of the year, and their living room windows open in the summer. Higher noise reductions are relevant to countries where special window glazing is generally applied for improving thermal isolation. Preliminary results suggest that the beneﬁt of the second predictor increases with increasing overall fac¸ade attenuation ~Vos, 1998!. 3. Determination of ASEL and CSEL in the ﬁeld The dynamic ranges of modern DAT recorders and sound-level meters allow reliable ASEL and CSEL measure- ments at relevant source–receiver distances. Wind-generated noise affects ASEL and CSEL measurements to the same extent ~Schomer, 1986!. However, at least at greater source– receiver distances, background noise from other environmen- tal sounds, such as those from road trafﬁc, may interfere with ASEL measurements for the impulses produced by large ﬁrearms and with CSEL measurements for the impulses pro- duced by small ﬁrearms. Consequently, if high-level background noise is continu- ously present, appropriate propagation models are required. Descriptions of a practical model that satisfactorily predicts the 16-Hz to 4-kHz-octave-band levels for distances up to 15 km may be found in Salomons et al.~1994!and in van den Berg et al.~1996!. VI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ~1!For the whole set of impulse sound types produced by various ﬁrearms ranging in caliber from 7.62 to 155 mm, the annoyance rated in outdoor conditions was almost en- tirely determined by ~outdoor!ASEL of the impulses. The explained variance,r 2 , in the mean ratings by ASEL was 0.95. The relation between outdoor annoyance and CSEL was much weaker (r 2 5 0.54). ~2!Similarly, the annoyance rated indoors with the win- dows closed was much better predicted from outdoor ASEL(r 2 5 0.87) than from outdoor CSEL(r 2 5 0.50). How- ever, on the basis of both ASEL and the product (L CE 2 L AE)(L AE2 a ), an almost perfect prediction of the annoy- ance was obtained ~multiple r 2 5 0.97!. ~3!For the entire set of impulses rated indoors with the windows closed, the rating sound level,L r , is given by L r 5 L AE1 12dB1 b (L CE2 L AE)(L AE2 a ), with a 5 45dB and b 5 0.015dB21. For the outdoor annoyance ratings, the op- timal parameter values were equal to a 5 57dB and, again, b 5 0.015dB21. ~4!The present laboratory results led to an efﬁcient gen- eral method for rating a great variety of shooting sounds. There is no need to develop separate procedures for different categories of ﬁrearm calibers. There are just two relevant acoustic measures: ASEL and CSEL. ~5!In validation studies, in which the effects of the present rating procedure will be compared to existing data reported in ﬁeld surveys on the annoyance caused by shoot- ing and road-trafﬁc sounds, it has to be determined to what extent the constants a and b have to be adjusted. 252 252J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was ﬁnanced by the Netherlands Ministry of Defense. The preparation of the present paper was further supported by Grant No. D99-101 from TNO Human Factors. 1In this example, the null hypothesis (H 0) was that the four conditions with different ASELs would yield identical annoyance ratings. The alternative hypothesis (H 1 ) was that the ratings would depend on ASEL. To test H 0 against H 1 requires the construction of an F ratio between a speciﬁc mean square in the numerator ~with the degrees of freedom represented by df1! and a mean square in the denominator ~with the degrees of freedom repre- sented by df2!. These mean squares are calculated in the analysis of vari- ance. Under H 0 , the expected value of the F ratio is unity. In the present example, the F ratio is equal to 620. The decision rules in the statistical test are with respect to the rejection or nonrejection of H 0 . If the decision rules reject H 0 when in fact H 0 is true, the rules lead to an erroneous decision. The probability of making this kind of error is at most equal to the level of signiﬁcance ~p!of the test. In the present research area, the risk one is willing to take in rejecting the tested hypothesis falsely is given by a 5 0.05 or a 5 0.01. Since, in the present example, the estimated level of signiﬁcance (p5 0.000 001) is much smaller than criterion a, it is con- cluded that the ratings were indeed affected by ASEL. Birnie, S. E., Hall, F. L., and Taylor, S. M.~1980!. ‘‘The contribution of indoor and outdoor effects to annoyance at noise in residential areas,’’ in Proceedings Internoise 1980, Miami, pp. 975–978. Bishop, D. E.~1966!. ‘‘Judgments of the relative and absolute acceptability of aircraft noise,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.40, 108–122. Bowsher, J. M., Johnson, D. R., and Robinson, D. W.~1966!. ‘‘A further experiment on judging the noisiness of aircraft in ﬂight,’’ Acustica 17, 245–267. Brackenhoff, H. E. A., Buis, P. M., and von Meier, A.~1981!.Handleiding Meten en Rekenen Industrielawaai [Guide for Measuring and Calculating Industrial Noise]~Leidschendam, The Netherlands!, ICG-Report IL-HR- 13-01 ~in Dutch!. Buchta, E.~1994!.Bela¨stigung durch Kanonen- und Straßenverkehrsla ¨rm ~Institut fu ¨rLa¨rmschutz, Du ¨sseldorf, Germany!. Buchta, E.~1996!. ‘‘Annoyance caused by shooting noise—determination of the penalty for various weapon calibers,’’ in Proceedings Internoise 1996 ~Institute of Acoustics, St. Albans, U.K.!, Book 5, pp. 2495–2500. Buchta, E., and Vos, J.~1998!. ‘‘A ﬁeld survey on the annoyance caused by sounds from large ﬁrearms and road trafﬁc,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.104, 2890–2902. Buchta, E., and Vos, J.~1999!. Response to ‘‘Comments on ‘A ﬁeld survey on the annoyance caused by sounds from large ﬁrearms and road trafﬁc’ ’’ @J. Acoust. Soc. Am.106, 1594–1597#, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.106, 1598– 1601. Bullen, R. B., Hede, A. J., and Job, R. F. S.~1991!. ‘‘Community reaction to noise from an artillery range,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.37, 115–128. Gunn, W. J., Shigehisa, T., Fletcher, J. L., and Shepherd, W. T.~1981!. ‘‘Annoyance response to aircraft noise as a function of contextual effects and personality characteristics,’’ J. Aud. Res.21, 51–83. Hirsch, K.-W.~1998!. ‘‘Prediction of the difference between CSEL and ASEL of blast sounds for purposes of predicting annoyance,’’ in Proceed- ings of the 16th ICA and 135th Meeting ASA, edited by P. K. Kuhl and L. A. Crum ~University of Washington, Seattle, WA!, Vol. I, pp. 478–458. Johnson, D. R., and Robinson, D. W.~1967!. ‘‘The subjective evaluation of sonic bangs,’’ Acustica 18, 241–258. Keppel, G.~1973!.Design and Analysis. A Researcher’s Handbook ~Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ!. Kerry, G., Ford, R. D., and James, D.~1996!. ‘‘Bandwidth limitation effects on low-frequency impulse noise prediction and assessment,’’ Appl. Acoust.47~4!, 331–344. Kjellberg, A., Tesarz, M., Holmberg, K., and Landstro ¨m, U.~1997!. ‘‘Evaluation of frequency-weighted sound level measurements for predic- tion of low-frequency noise annoyance,’’ Environ. Int.23~4!, 519–527. Krahe´, D., and Buchta, E.~1994!. ‘‘Bestimmung der La ¨stigkeit von impul- sartigen Gera ¨uschen auf Basis der Lautheit,’’ in Fortschritte der Akustik— DAGA 1994 ~Bad Honnef, BRD: DPG-GmbH, 1994!, pp. 1117–1120. Kryter, K. D.~1970!.The Effects of Noise on Man ~Academic, Orlando!. Meloni, T., and Rosenheck, A.~1995!. ‘‘Choice of frequency weighting for the evaluation of weapon noise,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.97, 3636–3641. Myncke, H., Cops, A., and Gambart, R.~1977!. ‘‘Trafﬁc noise measure- ments in Antwerp and Brussels. Part II: Enquiry concerning annoyance,’’ in Proceedings 9th I.C.A.-Congress ~Madrid, Spain!, Paper E19. Peeters, A. L., Kaper, J. P., de Jong, R. G., and Tukker, J. C.~1984!.Hinder door Spoorweggeluid in de Woonomgeving [Railroad Noise Annoyance in Residential Areas]~Leidschendam, The Netherlands!, ICG-Report RL- HR-03-03 ~in Dutch!. Poulton, E. C.~1989!.Bias in Quantifying Judgments ~Erlbaum Associates, Hove, U.K.!. Robinson, D. W., Bowsher, J. M., and Copeland, W. C.~1963!. ‘‘On judg- ing the noise from aircraft in ﬂight,’’ Acustica 13, 324–336. Salomons, E. M., van den Berg, F. H. A., and Brackenhoff, H. E. A.~1994!. ‘‘Long-term average sound transfer through the atmosphere: predictions based on meteorological statistics and numerical computations of sound propagation,’’ in Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Long Range Sound Propagation, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 209–228. Schomer, P. D.~1977!. ‘‘Evaluation of C-weighted L dn for assessment of impulse noise,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.62, 396–399. Schomer, P. D.~1986!. ‘‘High-energy impulsive noise assessment,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.79, 182–186. Schomer, P. D.~1994!. ‘‘New descriptor for high-energy impulsive sounds,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.42, 179–191. Schomer, P. D.~1999!. ‘‘Comments on ‘A ﬁeld survey on the annoyance caused by sounds from large ﬁrearms and road trafﬁc’ ’’@J. Acoust. Soc. Am.104, 2890–2902#, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.106, 1594–1597. Schomer, P. D., and Sias, J. W.~1998!. ‘‘On spectral weightings to assess human response, indoors, to blast noise and sonic booms,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.46, 57–71. Schomer, P. D., and Wagner, L. R.~1995!. ‘‘Human and community re- sponse to military sounds–II. Results from ﬁeld-laboratory tests of sounds of small arms, 25-mm cannons, helicopters, and blasts,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.43, 1–13. Schomer, P. D., Wagner, L. R., Benson, L. J., Buchta, E., Hirsch, K.-W., and Krahe ´,D.~1994!. ‘‘Human and community response to military sounds: Results from ﬁeld-laboratory tests of small-arms, tracked-vehicle, and blast sounds,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.42, 71–84. van den Berg, F. H. A., Kinneging, N. A., and Salomons, E. M.~1996!. ‘‘An overview of a method to predict average propagation of shooting noise in order to create computer-generated noise contours around shooting ranges,’’ in Proceedings Internoise 1996 ~Institute of Acoustics, St. Al- bans, U.K.!, Book 2, pp. 579–582. Vos, J.~1995a!. ‘‘A review of research on the annoyance caused by impulse sounds produced by small ﬁrearms,’’ in Proceedings Internoise 1995, Newport Beach, CA, Vol. 2, pp. 875–878. Vos, J.~1995b!. ‘‘Technical note: On the comparability of community re- sponses to noise from artillery and riﬂe ranges, as determined in two Australian studies,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.43, 39–41. Vos, J.~1997a!. ‘‘Annoyance caused by sounds of military tracked vehicles, for indoor and outdoor conditions,’’ in Proceedings Internoise 1997, Budapest, Hungary, Vol. II, pp. 1003–1008. Vos, J.~1997b!. ‘‘A re-analysis of the relationship between the results ob- tained in laboratory and ﬁeld studies on the annoyance caused by high- energy impulsive sounds,’’ Noise Control Eng. J.45, 123–131. Vos, J.~1998!. ‘‘A further test of the relevance of ASEL and CSEL in the determination of the rating sound level for shooting sounds,’’ in Proceed- ings of the 16th ICA and the 135th Meeting ASA, edited by P. K. Kuhl and L. A. Crum ~University of Washington, Seattle, WA!,Vol.I,pp. 459–460. Vos, J.~2000!. ‘‘Comments on a procedure for rating high-energy impulsive sounds: Analyses of previous and new data sets, and suggestions for a revision,’’ Noise Vib. Worldwide 31, 18–29. Watts, G. R., and Nelson, P. M.~1993!. ‘‘The relationship between vehicle noise measures and perceived noisiness,’’ J. Sound Vib.164, 425–444. Winer, B. J.~1970!.Statistical Principles in Experimental Design ~McGraw-Hill, London!. Yaniv, S. L., Danner, W. F., and Bauer, J. W.~1982!. ‘‘Measurement and prediction of annoyance caused by time-varying highway noise,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.72, 200–207. 253 253J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 109, No. 1, January 2001 Joos Vos: Annoyance caused by shooting sounds From:Jinene Yoshimura To:Gail Massagli Subject:12/13 Parks and Rec meeting agenda item 5.1 Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:57:37 AM***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize thesender and know the content is safe. I am in favor of adding 6 more pickleball courts to Osage Park. Thank you! Jinene Ting 300 Livermore St Danville 94506 From:Henry Perezalonso To:John Somers Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Pickleball Expansion at Osage Park Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:57:35 AMJohn, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: John Somers <somers.jc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 6:53 PM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Pickleball Expansion at Osage Park ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Dear Town, I am opposed to any expansion of pickleball at Osage The proposed Osage pickleball complex is too close to homes for the impulsive and persistent noise that it will introduce. It is too deep into an already impacted residential area that is home to the park as well as a middle school and an elementary school; with hundreds of kids and bikes and prams going to and from every day. It is a very bad idea. Please question the data in your reports, digest the papers submitted by concerned stakeholders (of Danville!) and check the Google. This project is unwise and untenable. John Somers Danville Resident From:Henry Perezalonso To:June Chang Cc:Gail Massagli; _Parks Recreation and Arts Commission Subject:RE: Dec. 13th meeting of the parks, recreation, and arts commission Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:58:20 AMJune, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: June Chang <juensuh7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7:23 PM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Dec. 13th meeting of the parks, recreation, and arts commission ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I’ve lived in Danville for over 26 years. I’m in support of the additional pickleball courts at the Osage station. Warm regards, June Chang Sent from my iPhone From:Henry Perezalonso To:Jennifer Jo Wiseman Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Public Comment: Opposing Additional Pickleball Courts at Osage Park Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:59:05 AMJennifer, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: Jennifer Jo Wiseman <jenniferjowiseman@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 8:07 PM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Public Comment: Opposing Additional Pickleball Courts at Osage Park ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to oppose the proposal for additional Pickleball courts at Osage Park. Over the last several years cities across the US have learned the hard way what happens when pickleball facilities are created without considering the potential impact on residents nearby. Pickleball at Osage goes against all of the lessons other cities have learned, resulting in complaints, lawsuits, reduced hours and closures. Osage Park is surrounded by a residential area close to the proposed location and residential areas lining the streets to get there. These are the same streets where we see hundreds of kids (biking and walking), new moms with babies and whole families out for walks. They are also the same streets already congested by on going park activities. Osage clearly has more negatives than positives for this project and other parks in Danville offer space free from residential areas, easy access via large roads and ample parking. Please take the time to read the materials provided that challenge the idea that this project will have "no negative impact" to this neighborhood. The risk is too great to accept flawed data to support this decision. Please do the right thing! Choose a better location for Pickleball than Osage Park. Jennifer Jo Wiseman Danville Resident From:Henry Perezalonso To:Catherine Hopper Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Oppose additional pickleball courts at Osage Park Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 9:26:53 AM Catherine, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received your public comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We are currently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmental significance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. The Commission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item, including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the following website: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Hopper <mchfamily@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:56 AM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Oppose additional pickleball courts at Osage Park ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Town of Danville Council and Parks & Recreation Commission, I am writing to inform you that I oppose adding more pickle ball courts to Osage park. I believe the 2 courts we currently have our sufficient. Additional courts will negatively effect our neighborhood. I am very concerned about traffic and parking along Orange Blossom and Canary court, which is where I reside. I believe there is much evidence of the severe negative impact of having multiple pickle ball courts such as in neighborhoods in Walnut Creek. I would sincerely appreciate you adding courts to a more favorable and appropriate location such as Sycamore Park that doesn’t infringe on homes like mine. Thank you, Catherine Hopper 10 Canary Court Danville, Ca From:Henry Perezalonso To:mandinewton1216@gmail.com Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Finding an alternative location to Danville pickleball courts Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:19:33 AMMandi Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: Mandi Newton <mandinewton1216@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:02 AM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Finding an alternative location to Danville pickleball courts ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Good morning all, Please see my attached letter. I hope you all have a great day! Mandi -- MANDI NEWTON Mobile Number: 415-225-9898 Email: mandinewton1216@gmail.com Picture Pickleball letter: December 10, 2023 Good evening, my name is Mandi Newton. I live at 521 El Capitan Drive, Danville CA. My home is on the Corner of Orange Blossom. Osage park and the tennis/ Pickleball courts are directly behind me. Like most of you I work a full-time demanding job. I’m also the mother of two busy boys and a Mustang soccer mom. I currently serve on five Boards of Directors, one council and six separate committees. I serve on PTA and started our schools philanthropic Serve committee as well as chair our Sister School committee. I love giving back to my community! I tell you this because I understand Robert’s rules of order. So quickly a motion is made, it’s just as quickly seconded and a vote of all in favor is passed. This is NOT a motion to approve last month’s minutes or a budget. This is a decision that will greatly affect the health and welfare of many in this community. The stress and anxiety this has caused myself as well as dozens of my neighbors should really be considered and not taken lightly. Please use your voice and vote to make the right decision. Osage is NOT the right location for these additional courts. One of the Boards I serve on is my Danville Station HOA board. What are my neighbors talking about? The flood of NYE 2022 and the clean up issues we are still facing, and complaints over our pickleball courts. Neighbors blocks away can hear them. We are trying to come up with solutions to mitigate the noise, hours of operation, special paddles. Etc. The problem, who is there to enforce such rules? How can we properly mitigate the noise? I also sit on the Board for CAI. Community Association Mgmt. This is an international organization whose mission is to provide education to HOA community managers, board members and business partner service providers. What’s the HOT topic? Pickleball, and the nuisance it is creating in our communities across the country. We are not alone in our fight against the noise. Just look at this map of hot spots across the country. There are thousands of articles and lawsuits currently taking place. Let’s learn from this! After the original two courts were built at Osage, Henry and his team were directed to look at other locations to build more courts. In this report Sycamore Park was one of the options. Unfortunately, it only looked at building over existing basketball courts and using some green space in the middle of the park. It didn’t look at building on the West side of the park. I had a meeting with one of our Town council members. He asked, why not look at the West side of the park? You have Tassajara that will allow for the traffic. You have ample parking. We have plans to build bathrooms. We could install lights which would make the players happy as the hours could be longer. And the best part, they are over 500 feet from any residence. He was onto something! Our extensive site research shows this location to be ideal. With Osage, the traffic will have an impact on our small streets. Parking will be challenging, especially during baseball season, where cars flood into our streets. Speaking of floods, on NYE while my neighbors were being evacuated from their homes on paddleboards and the like, I stayed back to try and protect my home. One of our Town council members drove their car into the mud. They were stuck and had to be rescued by a fireman. They came to my home for refuge, to use the bathroom and seek shelter from the storm. I opened my home, offered them warm socks and dry boots. Why? Because this is how we treat our neighbors. We look out for one another. Please be a good neighbor and look out for us in our time of need. Make the right decision, build the courts, just build them somewhere other than our backyard! Thanks, Mandi Newton From:Henry Perezalonso To:Kolisa Larue Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Pickleball at Osage Park Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:32:40 AMKolisa, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: Kolisa Larue <kolisalarue@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:30 AM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Pickleball at Osage Park ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Dear Henry, Parks and Recreation Commissioners, and Members of Danville Town Council, My neighbors and I have gone to great lengths to be informed, objective, and proactive on this proposal to construct 8 new pickleball courts at Osage Park. We have visited other facilities. We have spoken to people living near 8 courts. We have read numerous studies and articles. We have watched other town council meetings wrestling with the same issues that we are concerned about. There is no doubt that building 8 pickleball courts near homes in a residential neighborhood with 2 nearby schools that generate lots of pedestrian traffic is irresponsible. Our objective is not to prevent anyone from playing pickleball. Clearly it is popular and in demand, and features benefits of health and community which I whole-heartedly support under the proper circumstances. However, we do want to see common good prevail, wise planning followed, and careful stewardship of our community and funds. While the Osage location is fraught with issues, there is a location 3.2 miles up the road - yes, a 6-minute drive - that alleviates all of these concerns and appears to be an ideal location for a pickleball hub that can receive thousands of visitors and do no harm to residents. To not see this location further explored by the Parks and Rec Commission is perplexing. I’ve lived near Osage for 23-years and have full conviction and great concern that the plan to construct 8 Pickleball courts at Osage Park will do irreversible harm to a treasured part of the Danville community. Specifically: - Eight courts will produce excessive noise that poses a non-stop nuisance to home- owners and park-goers alike. Research has shown that six courts in play produce 5,400 impulsive pops per hour. 8 courts in a day is more than 73,000 pops. From the two existing courts, I hear the “pops” all the way over by the snack shack. Numerous homes and park users will be subjected to this troublesome noise during all daylight hours. This will greatly impact their ability to have peace within and outside their homes, possibly have a negative impact on their health and well-being, and negatively impact places of business as several residents work from their homes. For students at Charlotte Wood with learning challenges, this popping sound may also be a detriment. - Increased traffic volume is a huge concern that endangers pedestrian safety, exceeds the capacity of our 2-lane roads, and parking that is supposed to accommodate all park users, of which there are already many. The traffic study by Kimley Horn seems to be flawed by under-counting what we believe will be traffic flow that exceeds what is safe and reasonable for this residential area. We know that the Rudgear courts see visitors from as far away as Oakland and Stockton. As those courts are closed or greatly reduced in hours, we are very likely to see a significant influx of non-Danville visitors to the Osage community. - The Kimley Horn study makes no mention of pedestrian traffic, however that is a significant factor in the Osage neighborhood. I personally counted more than 500 pedestrians - that are majority students - going to and from school at the Brookside/Orange Blossom and El Capitan/Orange Blossom intersections, and Orange Blossom pass-thru and tennis court parking lot combined, both going to and from school in a day. This is a wonderful benefit to our community, that so many kids do walk and ride bikes/scooters to school. During this time, they are laughing and talking to friends, not looking at screens. I feel that protecting this benefit is of enormous importance to the well-being of our youth. As we have pointed out before, there are 2 schools proximal to Osage park with about 1300 students. The impact to them and their parents should figure into this overall impact report and the Town’s decision. - Adding more concrete will likely pose environmental harm that increases risk of flooding as green space is removed. We all observed the flooding from last winter and now know that Osage is a flood zone as it had massive rivers running in front of and behind the homes all along Orange Blossom Way and in front of El Capitan. Some residents experienced flooding of their homes which produced quite a burden upon them. And while the Town was compassionate in that instance, it now proposes to subject those same individuals to the non-stop noise of pickleball and associaited excessive traffic. - I fully anticipate that we will see infringement upon the public services of 2 nearby schools and a beloved park, and related parking, including all of the activities that already depend upon Osage availability, amenities, and its heritage as a place of refuge. So my request is that the Town of Danville continue in the standard of excellence that has made this such a wonderful place to live for all residents. Please do the right thing by moving this hub 3.2 miles up to Sycamore Park or elsewhere that enjoys built-in mitigation of the known negatives that accompany the booming activity of pickleball so that players can play and residents can enjoy the outstanding quality of life that is this Town’s hallmark. Thank you. Respectfully, Kolisa Larue From:Carol Manuel To:Gail Massagli Subject:December 14th park and Rec Meeting Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:45:24 AM***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize thesender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, My name is Carol Manuel and I have lived in Danville since 1997 (26 years). I would like to voice my support for additional pickleball courts at Osage park. I live within 2 miles of Osage and have enjoyed playing pickleball here. I believe more courts are needed to cut down on the wait times for a court, which will enable increased physical activity. At 73 years old, this activity is approved by my doctor. This sport also offers me the ability to interact with people who also live in the city that me and my family love. This is a sport that allows for an easy pickup game. I encourage you to move forward with increasing the number of courts. Thank you. Carol Manuel 1010 Shady Creek Place Danville Sent from my iPhone From:Henry Perezalonso To:Kim Van Hoesen Cc:Gail Massagli Subject:RE: Pickleball - NOT at Osage Date:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 11:16:24 AMKim, Thank you for your email. The Park, Recreation, and Arts Commission has received yourpublic comment for its next meeting tonight, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 pm. We arecurrently in a public review period of a negative declaration of environmentalsignificance and studies conducted associated with the proposed project. TheCommission will discuss this item at its next meeting. Information about this item,including the studies conducted and previous reports, can be found at the followingwebsite: https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle-ball Henry Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville | (925) 314-3454 From: Kim Van Hoesen <kimvanh1994@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:58 AM To: Henry Perezalonso <HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov>; Adam Falcon <afalcon@danville.ca.gov>; Addison Brown <abrown@danville.ca.gov>; Jenna Mesic <jmesic@danville.ca.gov>; Randall Diamond <rdiamond@danville.ca.gov>; Kevin Donovan <kdonovan@danville.ca.gov>; Jane Joyce <jjoyce@danville.ca.gov>; Joe Lindsey <jlindsey@danville.ca.gov>; Charles Neary <cneary@danville.ca.gov>; Carol Mascali <cmascali@danville.ca.gov>; Newell Arnerich <NArnerich@danville.ca.gov>; Robert Storer <RStorer@danville.ca.gov>; Karen Stepper <KStepper@danville.ca.gov>; David Fong <dfong@danville.ca.gov>; Renee Morgan <RMorgan@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Pickleball - NOT at Osage ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I am writing to you over my concern of increasing the number of pickleball courts at Osage Park. As those who represent us, please listen to our concerns and PLEASE look at the best location for pickleball courts in Danville. Osage is not the correct place for a pickleball venue. Pickleball is a great sport, but requires an appropriate location. Sycamore Park is a far superior location for a larger number of pickleball courts. Sycamore Park is right off a major connector (Camino Tassajara- 24,000 car capacity) with signal lights for turning lanes at each of the two parking locations (east and west). In the front location, houses are across Camino Tassajara, but constant noise from the road and park overshadow potential court noise. Basically, the mitigations/concessions that cities have struggled to implement would not be needed at Sycamore Park. Putting in additional courts at Osage could leave Danville, like so many other communities across the nation, stuck in litigation and battles and money spent on courts not being used. Please use our money wisely and help find the appropriate place for pickleball in our community. Thank you, Kim Van Hoesen 13 Meadowlark Ct. Danville, CA 94526