Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052124-08.1TO: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8.1 Town Council May 21, 2024 SUBJECT: Consider adoption of Resolution No. 29-2024, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and approving the addition of Six New Pickleball Courts with Associated Seating at Osage Station Park BACKGROUND The Town of Danville adopted its Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan Update (Plan) in 2017. The Plan "establishes a long-range vision and course of action for creating and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks, recreation and arts facilities, services and programs." The Plan contains several overall recommendations for ways of keeping the Town's park system as relevant as possible. One recommendation is to "Increase the multi -functionality and recreation value of existing parks and facilities through capital improvements that incorporate new recreation facilities and features." A second recommendation is to "Support emerging recreation activities to address trends and add variety to the recreation options in Danville." The plan also specifically "identifies outdoor recreation facilities to consider for Danville's parks system to augment and diversify the existing inventory of sports fields, courts, and playgrounds." Examples identified included a skatepark, disc golf, pickleball, outdoor fitness area, and a destination play area (universally accessible)." The Plan contains some specific recommendations regarding Osage Station Park, including investigating "the possibility of installing a skate park where bocce courts were planned in the park's 30 -year Master Plan." In 2020, the Town Council concluded that a skate park should be located at Diablo Vista Park rather than Osage. The Town's Osage Station Park Master Plan (prepared in 2011) envisioned several possible new uses for the area of the park near the tennis courts. The options identified ranged from the addition of more tennis courts to adding bocce courts to adding a snack shack/community room. As of today, none of those improvements have been added, with bocce being switched fully to Sycamore Valley Park. The Plan includes several strategic recommendations for providing inclusive recreational opportunities for users of all ages and supporting emerging recreation activities to address trends and increase the variety of recreational opportunities available to the community. Pickleball is an example of one such activity. Pickleball was a recommendation brought through the Plan development based on community input and was determined to be a priority recommendation for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (Commission). Pickleball programming was introduced in Danville through several pop-up events presented by the Recreation, Arts, and Community Services staff at a variety of park locations in the Town. Events were held indoors at the Los Cerros Gym, outdoors at the basketball courts at Danville South and Sycamore Valley Parks, and at the tennis courts at both Osage Station and Diablo Vista Parks. The goal was to introduce the sport and show the versatility of locations where it can be played. At the January 13, 2021, Commission meeting, Town staff provided a report that included information regarding tennis court reservation usage in the Town and the feasibility of options for adding outdoor pickleball courts in Danville. After discussing tennis court usage and pickleball options and hearing public comments, the Commission recommended that staff move forward with Option 2 at Osage Station Park by converting one tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts by the spring or summer of 2021. They also recommended Option 1 as a backup if timing and funding were not lining up to be executed in a timely fashion (Attachment B). Although four courts were approved, two were ultimately deleted due to insufficient space to accommodate more within the current court configuration. At its February 10, 2021, meeting, the Commission provided its final approval to move forward with the conversion project, which was completed in April 2021 (Attachment C). This resulted in the Town's first two pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. As expected, the courts have proven to be extremely popular, particularly during the morning hours, and there appears to be more than enough demand to warrant adding additional courts. In June 2022, based on the apparent demand for additional pickleball courts, the Town Council approved the 2022/ 2023 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, which included CIP Project B-637 Pickleball Courts, to expand the number of courts available at Town parks. The funding is not tied to a particular location within the Town. At its July 13, 2022, meeting, the Commission, based on its priority recommendation of additional pickleball courts and the substantial use of the two courts at Osage Station Park, received and reviewed a preliminary site analysis to determine where adding courts may be feasible (Attachment D). After a discussion of the site analysis, the Commission determined Osage Station Park to be the optimal location for additional courts. The recommendation was to potentially Pickleball 2 May 21, 2024 increase the number of pickleball courts from two to up to a maximum of 14 courts and the addition of another tennis court to bring the total number back to four tennis courts. At its November 9 and November 30, 2022, meetings, the Commission conducted public hearings to review options for additional courts at Osage Station Park, including increasing the number of pickleball courts to up to eight courts, the number of tennis courts, hours of use, precise siting within the park, seating options, etc. (Attachment E) The Commission received extensive public input on the proposal directly from residents, both in favor of and in opposition to the addition of courts. The Commission unanimously directed staff to conduct an Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), to retain an acoustical consultant to assist in the environmental review, which would look at the potential environmental impacts of creating a project with a maximum of eight pickleball courts and up to four tennis courts, along with seating area. Given the Commission's direction provided at the November 2022 meetings, the Town worked through completing the CEQA process to study the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The two prime areas of study were noise and traffic/ parking. At its December 13, 2023, meeting, the Commission reviewed the results of the study and the recommendation to adopt the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approving one of the project options of adding up to six new pickleball courts as shown in Attachment F. Both the acoustical and traffic studies reviewed concluded that there were no potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project. With respect to parking, adequate parking is available to accommodate the proposed project. For traffic, even with the additional trips generated, the overall traffic is within the identified capacity for all roadway segments. For the acoustical analysis, the study concluded that the addition of six pickleball courts would not create any significant environmental impacts and that no environmental mitigation is necessary. (Attachment F) After receiving public input, the Commission adopted the resolution and approved the addition of six courts at Osage Station Park. Although the CEQA process revealed no significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation, the Commission added conditions to the project to address concerns raised by neighbors and/or to ensure compatibility with other activities in the park. Those conditions included limiting the hours of use, prioritizing use, and adding sound barriers. With the approval by the Commission of the project and the Negative Declaration, the Commission was made aware that its decision could be appealed to the Town Council Pickleball 3 May 21, 2024 for their consideration. On December 19, 2023, a timely appeal was filed by Laurinda Ochoa, on behalf of the group Preserve Osage Park. DISCUSSION The appeal to the Council challenges the Commission's approval of the project itself and the Negative Declaration. Because the project has been described in detail above, this section will focus on the environmental review. As explained in detail below, Town staff and its acoustical consultant took a second look at the noise issues and, as a result, have drafted and circulated a new Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment G). Both the original Initial Study and Negative Declaration focused on two potential environmental impacts of the project: traffic/parking and noise. The Town retained outside consultants to look at each of these issues. The second Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration reviewed the revised acoustical study. There has been no change to the traffic/parking study. Each is addressed here. Traffic and Parking The Town retained Kimley Horn and Associates (KHA) to study the potential traffic and parking impacts of the project through a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (Attachment E). While the TIA includes an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts (which is the required standard under CEQA), the primary focus is on roadway capacity analysis for the four roadway segments shown below, as well as a parking occupancy and demand analysis to determine the proposed project's effects. The TIA looked at the impacts of up to a total of eight pickleball courts and the three existing tennis courts. Roadway segments analyzed were: • Orange Blossom Way (south of Osage Station Park, south parking lot entry) • Orange Blossom Way (north of Osage Station Park, south parking lot entry) • Osage Station Park Driveway (east of Orange Blossom Way) • El Capitan Drive (west of Orange Blossom Way) For purposes of both traffic and parking analysis, any such study will rely on parking and trip generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). As discussed during the Commission hearings in November 2022, the ITE has not yet developed trip and parking generation rates for pickleball, so the default is to use those for tennis courts. However, in an effort to be conservative and to recognize the concerns raised by members of the public, KHA was instructed to adjust the ITE tennis court rates by a factor of 1.5, in other words, a 50% increase. Pickleball 4 May 21, 2024 For both parking and traffic, the projected increased demand is added to measured peak usage numbers to determine potential impacts. The KHA study concludes that with respect to parking, there is adequate parking available to accommodate the proposed project. For traffic, even with the additional trips generated, the overall traffic is within the identified capacity for all roadway segments. It should be noted that the TIA only studied three tennis courts to go along with either six or eight pickleball courts. Town staff followed up to determine whether the TIA's. conclusions would be the same with four tennis courts. The answer is that there would still be adequate parking, but for traffic, there would be a slight exceedance of the vehicle trips per day on the segment of Orange Blossom Way between the south parking lot and El Capitan Drive during school pick-up and drop-off periods. In order to avoid this, the project would need to be limited to eight pickleball and three tennis courts or six pickleball and four tennis courts. Noise In order to address noise/acoustics, the Town selected Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). Rincon had previously prepared CEQA work for proposed pickleball courts in Martinez. The study prepared by Rincon assumed a total of eight pickleball courts plus three tennis courts and looked at impacts on surrounding residences (Attachment F). To categorize ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project, noise reading measurements were taken at the following six locations surrounding the current courts: • At the end of the parking lot to capture noise generated from surrounding park activity • Near the parking lot to capture noise levels at the backyard of 882 Orange Blossom Way • Approximately 50 feet east of the existing pickleball courts while games were underway • At the southern boundary of Osage Station Park to capture noise levels at the backyard of 535 El Capitan Drive • Near the west end of the basketball courts at Charlotte Wood Middle School • Approximately 50 feet north of the northern The original noise study supporting the Negative Declaration included two factors challenged by the appellants in this matter. First, it used as a threshold of significance the noise levels found in Policy 27.09 of the Town's General Plan. Those levels were used as they are the only quantifiable standards in the General Plan or Municipal Code. Second, the noise meter used for the testing was set to a "slow" meter response. Pickleball 5 May 21, 2024 The consultant retained by the appellants in this matter opined that these factors did not adequately analyze the noise impacts of pickleball due to the "impulsive"nature of the racket hittingball. It should be noted thatthe appellant's letter and noise generated by consultant did not specify a different noise threshold to use in place of those found in Policy 27.09 of the Town's General Plan. While Town staff remains comfortable with the original study, our acoustical consultant was asked to reexamine the study, taking into account the appellant's concerns. This led to the Updated Noise study dated April 18, 2024, and found as Attachment G. This represents a more conservative view of potential noise impacts. The first change in the Updated Study is the threshold of significance. The Town 's consultant recommended the use of residential noise limits found in the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance (State of California 1977). While the Town has not adopted this model ordinance, it is used throughout the state for CEQA purposes, including by agencies that have not formally adopted it. A 5 decibel adjustment was applied to residential noise limits due to the impulsive nature of pickleball sound. The second change is that the consultant took another reading of existing noise at the park (identified as ST -6 in the study) with the noise meter set to a "fast" response. That was then used to model the projected project noise at nearby residential property lines. With these two changes, the Updated Study concluded that without mitigation, there would be some exceedances of the thresholds of significance in some circumstances (see Table 6 of the Updated Study). Given that, the Updated Study then proposes mitigation measures to reduce impacts. With mitigation, the noise produced is less than significant. This finding is the basis for the Mitigated Negative Declaration which is presented for approval with the project. The primary mitigation proposed is to include the installation of "sound blankets" on the fencing surrounding the courts. These had already been approved by the Commission as a condition of approval -this simply makes it a mitigation measure. The other proposed mitigations include calling for the use of "Quiet Category" paddles and a future follow- up study. In addition to these, the Commission had included conditions of approval aimed at further reducing noise impacts. Those conditions (limiting hours of use and establishing priority of use for Town activities) are still recommended for approval. The Updated Study looked at one final issue which the Commission had asked about -if reducing the total number of courts from eight to six would make a significant difference. The Updated Study found that this reduction in courts would only reduce noise levels by 1 decibel. Pickleball 6 May 21, 2024 FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funding has been appropriated for pickleball expansion as part of the 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 29-2024, Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approving the Addition of Six New Pickleball Courts with Associated Seating at Osage Station Park. Prepared and Reviewed by: 4/?-eP-- Henry Perezalonso Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Attachments: A - Resolution No. 29-2024 B January 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions C - February 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions D - July 2022 Staff Report and Summary of Actions E- November 2022 Staff Report and Summary of Actions F - December 2023 Staff Report, Summary of Actions and Negative Declaration and Supporting Studies G - Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supporting Studies H - Correspondence Pickleball 7 May 21, 2024 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1305E7AF-58E8-49E5-8EE1-6F0500A32177 RESOLUTION NO. 29-2024 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE AND APPROVING THE ADDITION OF SIX NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS WITH ASSOCIATED SEATING AT OSAGE STATION PARK WHEREAS, Policy 19.03 of the Town of Danville's 2030 General Plan calls for the Town to monitor the adequacy of the Town's existing community facilities and expand capacity and use as needed; and WHEREAS, the Town of Danville's Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan (the "Strategic Plan"), as updated in 2017, establishes a long range vision for creating and sustaining the Town's parks and recreation opportunities for residents; and WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of the Strategic Plan contains a number of recommendations for sustaining and reinvesting in the Town's parks, including: • Recommendation 2, "Increase the multi -functionality and recreation value of existing parks through capital improvements that incorporate new recreation facilities and features...."; and, • Recommendation 6, "Support emerging recreation activities to address trends and add variety to the recreation options in Danville. Examples ...include...pickleball...."; and WHEREAS, in 2021, the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (the "Commission") approved the conversion of one existing tennis court at Osage Station Park to create two pickleball courts, the first permanent pickleball courts installed by the Town; and WHEREAS, based on the popularity and usage of these two courts, coupled with the rapid growth in pickleball as a recreational activity, in June 2022, the Town Council added Project B-637 to the Town's Capital Improvement Program to expand the number of courts available. Project B-637 did not specify a location or the number of courts to be added, deferring those decisions to the Commission; and WHEREAS, at its July 13, 2022, meeting, the Commission reviewed options for location of new pickleball courts in a number of Town parks and determined that adding courts at Osage Station Park was the best location; and WHEREAS, at its meetings of November 9 and November 30, 2022, the Commission conducted public hearings to review options for additional courts at Osage Station Park, including the number of pickleball courts, the number of tennis courts, hours of use, precise siting within the park, seating options, etc. The Commission received extensive public input on the proposal; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 1305E7AF-58E8-49E5-8EE1-6F0500A32177 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the November 30, 2022, meeting, the Commission unanimously directed staff to conduct an Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), to retain an acoustical consultant to assist in the environmental review, which would look at the potential environmental impacts of creating a project with a maximum of eight pickleball courts and four tennis courts, along with bench seating; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, an Initial Study of Environmental Significance was prepared for the project, which included a Noise Study prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. and a Transportation Impact Study prepared by Kimley - Horn Associates, Inc. These studies concluded that adding six new pickleball courts would not result in any significant environmental impacts in the areas of Noise and Transportation and, on that basis, a draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was prepared; and WHEREAS, the Town's Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission held a public hearing on December 13, 2023, to consider the project and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission adopted the Negative Declaration and approved the addition of six new pickleball courts, with associated seating, at Osage Station Park; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, a timely appeal of the Commission's decision was filed on behalf of Preserve Osage Park; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the Commission's approval, the Town directed its acoustical consultant to prepare an Updated Noise study applying a more conservative threshold of significance, studying the noise impacts with the noise meter set to a "fast" setting and looking at potential noise reductions of reducing the total number of courts from eight to six; and WHEREAS, based on the Updated Noise study, it was determined that the project could potentially lead to thresholds of significance being exceeded. Based on this information, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for the project indicating that, as modified through project revisions and/ or recommended conditions of approval, no significant adverse environmental impacts are expected to be associated with the project. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for public comment and is now recommended for adoption by the Town Council; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Danville Town Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approves the addition of six new pickleball courts, PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 29-2024 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1305E7AF-58E8-49E5-8EE1-6F0500A32177 with associated seating, at Osage Station Park. This will result in a total of eight pickleball and three tennis courts. These approvals are based on the following findings in support of this action: FINDINGS OF APPROVAL Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance 1. The Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, all documents supporting it and all comments received. 2. The Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents reflect the independent judgment of the Council. 3. The City Clerk, whose office is located at 500 La Gonda Way in Danville, is the custodian of all documents and materials constituting the record of proceedings of this item before the Council. 4. The mitigations proposed and incorporated into the project as conditions of approval will mitigate the effects of the project so that no significant effect on the environment will occur. 5. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project, as conditioned, will have a significant impact on the environment. Approval of Additional Pickleball Courts 1. Chapter 4 of the Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan (2017 update) contains a number of recommendations for sustaining and reinvesting in the Town's parks, including: a. Recommendation 2, "Increase the multi -functionality and recreation value of existing parks through capital improvements that incorporate new recreation facilities and features...."; and b. Recommendation 6, "Support emerging recreation activities to address trends and add variety to the recreation options in Danville. Examples ...include ...pickleball...."; and 2. The residents of the Town have demonstrated the need for additional pickleball courts in Danville. 3. The Council has reviewed the analysis of all Town parks to determine the most feasible location for additional pickleball courts and concluded that Osage Station Park is the most feasible. 4. The addition of six pickleball courts at Osage Station Park, for a total of eight pickleball and three tennis courts, will best serve the needs of the Town's residents, is consistent with the Town's General Plan and Strategic Plan and adds to the variety of recreational uses at Osage Station Park. PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 29-2024 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1305E7AF-58E8-49E5-8EE1-6F0500A32177 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of approval typed in italicized text are mitigation measures derived from the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance prepared for the project. The following conditions of approval shall be incorporated into the project approval: 1. Hours of play for the pickleball courts shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to Dusk on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to Dusk on weekends. 2. Town leagues, classes and camps will have first priority use of the courts. 3. No commercial use, league play or tournaments, other than those offered by the Town's Recreation Department, will be allowed. 4. Prior to project operation, affix sound blankets of a minimum 12 foot height to the chain- link fences enclosing the courts along the project southern, western, and eastern court boundaries. The sound blankets shall be at least 1/8 -inch thick, continuous from grade to top of the blankets with no gaps and have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28. S. Prior to project operation, post signs at the pickleball court entrances with a list of allowable USA Pickleball "Quiet Category" -compliant paddles. Non -quiet paddles shall be prohibited. 6. Following project implementation, the Town shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to measure project operational noise levels to verify that noise levels at the closest residential property lines do not exceed the Town's thresholds. APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on May 21, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1—DocuSigneed by: E44,1 D . EW44,1 CiffriToRNEy MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK PAGE 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 29-2024 4.2 PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission January 13, 2021 SUBJECT: Review Tennis Court Usage and Options for Pickleball Courts in the Town of Danville and Provide Staff with a Recommendation for Action BACKGROUND: The Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan Update (Plan) was adopted by the Town in 2017. The Plan "establishes a long-range vision and course of action for creating and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks, recreation and arts facilities, services and programs." The Plan includes several strategic recommendations for how to provide inclusive recreational opportunities for users of all ages. This includes supporting emerging recreation activities to address trends and increase the variety of recreational opportunities available to the community. Pickleball is an example of one such activity. Pickleball was determined to be a priority recommendation for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (Commission). Pickleball is a racquet sport that combines elements of badminton, tennis, and table tennis. Two, three, or four players use solid paddles made of wood or composite materials to hit a perforated polymer ball, similar to a whiffle ball, over a net. The sport shares features of other racquet sports, the dimensions and layout of a badminton court, and a net and rules similar to tennis. Pickleball was invented in the mid-1960s as a children's backyard pastime but has become popular among adults as well. In many cities throughout the country and state, pickleball courts and games continue to grow in popularity. Pickleball programming was introduced in Danville through several pop-up events presented by the Recreation, Arts and Community Services staff at a variety of park locations in the Town. Events were .held indoors at the Los Cerros Gym as well as outdoors at the basketball courts at Danville South and Sycamore Valley Parks, and at the tennis courts at both Osage Station and Diablo Vista Parks. The goal was to not only introduce the sport but to also show the versatility as to locations where it can be played. At the November 12, 2020 Commission meeting, Danville resident Ben Crockett provided a presentation regarding pickleball with a request to consider the restriping and addition of pickleball courts in the Town of Danville. The Commission also received public A TT A CHMF.NT B comment both in support of, and with concerns of, loss of usage to the tennis community. At that meeting, the Commission requested staff provide information regarding the usage of current tennis courts and potential options for pickleball courts in Danville. DISCUSSION Upon receiving request from the Commission, staff began collecting information of tennis court usage in the Town and researching the feasibility and options of adding outdoor pickleball courts in Danville. The following information represents reservations and usage for the 2019 calendar year. Due to the pandemic, the 2020 calendar year reservations and usage would not represent typical usage. Court Usage Diablo Vista Park contains two lighted tennis courts; generally, one court is reservable and one is available for community walk-on use. The only exception would be when Town programming takes place on both courts. In 2019, there were 594 reservations made, totaling just over 1,166 hours of use. This includes use for Town programs, Commercial Renters and Private renters. • Town Programs o 142 reservations, 166 hours reserved • Commercial Renters o 432 reservations, 976 hours reserved • Private Renters/Residents o 20 reservations, 24.5 Hours reserved These courts are primarily reserved by Commercial renters and Town tennis programs. Commercial renters are those businesses who rent the courts to provide group or private lessons to their clients. Town tennis programs consist of camps, group and private lessons. Diablo Vista also sees a large amount of walk-on use that is not scheduled or reserved. Osage Station Park contains four tennis courts; generally, three courts are reservable and one is available for community walk-on use. In 2019, there were 976 reservations made, totaling just over 1,644 hours of use. This includes use for Town programs, Tennis League Play, Commercial Renters, Non -Profit Renters, Private Renters and Court Maintenance. • Town Programs o 500 reservations, 502 hours reserved • Tennis League Play o 191 reservation, 402 hours reserved • Commercial Renters o 188 reservations, 362.75 hours reserved • Non -Profit Renters o 68 reservations, 276 hours reserved • Private Renters/Residents o 5 reservations, 6 hours reserved • Court Maintenance o 24 reservations, 96 hours reserved These courts are primarily reserved by Town tennis programs, league play and commercial renters. League play consists of local tennis leagues scheduling their seasons and playoffs for their members. Monte Vista High School contains eight tennis courts (4 lighted courts); generally, six courts are reservable and two are available for community walk-on use. These courts are jointly owned with the School District. Town oversees reservations for the District at this site. For security purposes, these courts are closed to public use when school is in session. In 2019, there were 903 reservations made, totaling just over 2,112 hours of use. This includes use for Monte Vista High School, Town programs,. Tennis League Play, Commercial Renters, Non -Profit Renters and Private Renters. • Monte Vista High School o 166 reservations, 492 hours reserved • Town Programs o 100 reservations, 300 hours reserved • Tennis League Play o 437 reservation, 871.25 hours reserved • Commercial Renters o 99 reservations, 185 hours reserved • Non -Profit Renters o 84 reservations, 247.5 hours reserved • Private Renters/Residents o 17 reservations, 17 hours reserved These courts are primarily used and reserved by school programs, league play and Town programs. High School usage consists of school day instruction, school district -run programs and the tennis team. Along with joint ownership, this site also has two different fee structures, one set by the School District, and one by the Town. San Ramon Valley High School contains eight lighted tennis courts; generally, six courts are reservable and two are available for community walk-on use. The Town oversees reservations for the District yet does not schedule programming at this site. For security purposes, these courts are closed to public use when school is in session. In 2019, there were 298 reservations made totaling just over 763 hours of use. This includes use for San Ramon Valley High School, Tennis League Play, Commercial Renters, and Non -Profit Renters. • San Rarnon Valley High School o 40 reservations, 136 hours reserved • Tennis League Play o 46 reservation, 46 hours reserved • Commercial Renters o 209 reservations, 520.5 hours reserved • Non -Profit Renters o 26 reservations, 61 hours reserved These courts are primarily used and reserved by school programs, Commercial renters, and League play. Pickleball Options Per the court usage and joint use agreements, the following options do not take into consideration the possible conversion of courts located at any School District properties; the Town has only six tennis courts outside of the School District courts. Consideration for potential future pickleball courts will only be for Town -owned properties. For reference, the dimensions of a tennis court are 78 feet by 36 feet, with approximately 2 feet on each side of the court where the tennis net is anchored into the pole sleeves. The dimensions of a pickleball court are 44 feet by 20 feet. PICKLEBALL COURT DIMENSIONS onl�ihi n. Right Set vice Arai J 7 on-Vo a Zone Kitche PLAY AF,( A ,t • •,i • ii W.`7 Nl91y111 Left ScrvRc Area V fJ Option 1 - Pickleball Overlay Move forward in creating multi -use tennis/pickleball courts by adding pickleball lines to existing courts. Overlays over the existing tennis courts would potentially provide one to four courts for pickleball use. This option would cost approximately $2,000-3,000. Option 2 -One Tennis Court Conversion Convert one tennis court into exclusive pickleball court. Removal of one of the existing tennis courts would potentially provide four dedicated pickleball courts for use. This option would cost approximately $15,000-20,000. 6©11 1ott Option 3 - Other Locations Research other locations within parks that may be able to be converted into pickleball courts, such as an underutilized grass area or sand volleyball court. This option would cost approximately $75,000-100,000. Option 4 - No Locations Do not move forward in adding any outdoor pickleball courts in Danville at this time. NEXT STEPS Staff requests a recommendation for further action regarding outdoor pickleball courts within the Town. Based on the recommendation from the Commission, staff will develop a more detailed report for consideration and action by the Commission. RECOMMENDATION Review Tennis Court usage and options for outdoor pickleball courts in the Town of Danville and provide staff with a recommendation for action. Prepared by: 7/*- eFfe Henry Perezalonso Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director December 19, 2023 Danville Town Council 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA Attn: Town Clerk Marie Sanseri Re: Resolution No. 01-2023 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF OSAGE STATION PARK PICKLEBALL COURT EXPANSION PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION `POP' or Preserve Osage Park, an unincorporated association of Danville residents and families, objects to the 12/13/23 Town of Danville's Parks and Recreation Committee's adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approving the addition of six new pickleball courts with associated seating at Osage Station Park and appeals from the approval of the project and of the Negative Declaration. This Notice of Appeal is submitted with a $300 cashier's check made out to the Town of Danville. Respectfully submitted on behalf of POP by Laurinda Ochoa ochoalaurinda(cimail.com 20 2122.3 (: 1)C.t Za3. F �©oxo` t' 1 •t. i4 a� cti I I f • t Y 7 , TOWN OF DANVILLE PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SUMMARY OF ACTIONS January 13, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was called to order by Chair Joyce at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was conducted by Teleconference only. 1.1 Roll Call Administrative Assistant Kristine Meidberg conducted the roll call for attendance: Present: Brittany Beech, Commissioner Kevin Donovan, Commissioner Kyler Fung, Commissioner Youth Representative Alesia Strauch, Commissioner Randall Diamond, Vice Chair Jane Joyce, Chair Absent: Alec Tappin, Commissioner 1.2 Announcements Kristine Meidberg, Administrative Assistant, provided information regarding the format of the meeting and instructions for public comment. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA There were no changes to the order of the agenda. 3. "FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWN" Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions January 13, 2021 Chair Joyce opened the Item for public comment. There were no public comments and Chair Joyce closed the item for comments. 4. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION 4.1. Approval of the Summary of Actions from the December 9, 2020, Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting. MOTION BY VICE CHAIR DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BEECH, TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2020 PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-0; Commissioner Tappin was absent, Commissioner Strauch not yet present. 4.2 Review Tennis Court Usage and Options for Pickleball Courts in the Town of Danville and Provide Staff with Recommendations for Action Director of Recreation, Arts and Community Services, Henry Perezalonso reviewed the reservation and usage totals of tennis courts from the year 2019 for the following four locations: Diablo Vista Park, Osage Station Park, Monte Vista High School, and San Ramon Valley High School. Of the four locations, only Diablo Vista Park and Osage Station Park are fully controlled by the Town for a total of six tennis courts. Three potential options for pickleball courts at Diablo Vista Park and Osage Station Park were presented. Option #1 - Pickleball Overlay - Creating multi -use courts by adding pickleball lines over existing courts, providing 1-4 pickleball courts. Temporary netting and storage would be required. The preliminary cost would be approximately $2000 - $3000. Options #2 - Court Conversion - Converting 1 tennis court into 4 dedicated pickleball courts with permanent netting. The preliminary cost would be approximately $15,000 -$20,000. 2 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions January 13, 2021 Option #3 - Research other locations within the parks that may be able to convert into a dedicated pickleball court area. The preliminary cost would be approximately $75,000 - $100,000. Option #4 - Do not move forward with adding Pickleball courts at this time. Director Perezalonso reminded everyone that there is no funding at this time for a pickleball project and that the Commission is being asked to come up with the next steps. Commissioner comments were made and questions answered. Chair Joyce opened Item 4.2 to public comment. Kristine Meidberg announced that the Town did receive public comments via email prior to the cut-off for today's meeting. All emails have been forwarded to the Commission for review. Kathy Sostaric, Danville, in support of pickleball. Expressed that there is one negative to Pickleball and that is the noise. With that in mind, she advises that Diablo Vista is too close to homes and would not be the best option. She also expressed many positives of pickleball and believes option 2 with all -day drop-in at no cost would be best. Steve Sutton, West Region Director for USA Pickleball Association, in support of pickleball. Expressed concerns over both locations. He believes with option 2 there is not enough room, it will be too narrow. Advises Town gets accurate measurements before moving forward. Stuart Proctor, Danville, in support of pickleball. Expressed that most of the issues being discussed have already been addressed by communities around Danville. He does have concerns when doing an overlay, multiple lines are confusing for both tennis and pickleball players. Advises Commission to take field trips to pickleball facilities. Expressed Option 2 is the best. Kim Moore, Danville, in support of pickleball. Expressed his love for pickleball. He is in support of Option 2 at Osage Station Park. He asked the commission if there was a possibility of converting more than 1 tennis court as he has seen the popularity of the sport in other areas. Mentioned that pickleball is for all ages. 3 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions January 13, 2021 Joel Crocket, Danville, in support of pickleball. Expressed his love for pickleball. Currently, he must travel to Walnut Creek and Concord to play and courts are always full with people waiting. Pickleball is a game for all ages. Most of the courts he has played on have been converted from tennis ball courts successfully. Addressed the utilization numbers of tennis vs pickleball and because of the noise concern he believes Osage Station would be the ideal location. Informed the Commission that newer paddles tend not to be as loud as the older paddles. Kristine Johnson, Danville, in support of pickleball. Echoed all the previous positive comments on pickleball. Would like to see permanent courts. Advised the Commission to go to the Walnut Creek courts to see the popularity of the courts. Listed the advantages of pickleball over tennis; easier on the joints, easier to learn, more social, a quicker game, game for all ages. Michael Harrison, Danville, in support of pickleball. Expressed that pickleball is for families, and that is what Danville is all about. Many clubs, retirement homes, and schools are converting tennis courts to pickleball. Stu Thompson, Danville, in support of pickleball. Option 2 is preferable. Found a sport that his whole family will play together. Aligns with the values of the Town of Danville. For-profit organizations have been converting tennis courts into pickleball courts, which is a good indication of the popularity of the sport. Monica Williams, President of Palo Alto Pickleball Club, in support of pickleball. Pickleball has been very successful in Palo Alto. The club started with 2 temporary courts and within a short period of time, they had 600 members in the club with 15 courts and 7 temporary courts. Pickleball has many assets for a city, it's an inclusive sport, has great health benefits, and builds community comradery. Alexander Fleming, Tennis and Pickleball Instructor at Crow Canyon Country Club in Danville, in support of pickleball. The club started with the overlay option and it did not work well. Tennis players stopped playing on that court because it was very difficult to see the lines. One year later, the club fully converted the court into 4 dedicated pickleball courts. The pickleball courts are very successful and are booked all day. They are now considering converting another court. He is in support of option #2. 4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions January 13, 2021 Chris Hunter, Board Member of Walnut Creek Pickleball Club, in support of pickleball. She advised, with overlays, it is a must to have storage at the site and personnel to be in charge of the equipment daily. She spoke of Walnut Creek's experience. They started with overlays at the Rudgear courts and then converted to 4 dedicated courts and 4 overlays in 2015. They noticed that people would wait and play on the dedicated courts only, so in 2018 they converted 4 more courts, and now have 8 dedicated courts that are busy the entire day. She is in support of option 2. Chair Joyce dosed item 4.2 to public comment. MOTION BY VICE CHAIR DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DONOVAN, TO PURSUE OPTION 2 AT OSAGE STATION PARK WHEREBY ONE TENNIS COURT IS CONVERTED INTO 4 DEDICATED PICKLEBALL COURTS, ALONGSIDE THIS MOTION KEEP OPTION 1 AS A BACK-UP IF TIMING AND FUNDING ARE NOT LINING UP TO EXECUTE IN A TIMELY FASHION. MOTION CARRIED 6-0; Commissioner Tappin was absent. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 5.1. Parks, Recreation & Arts Department Director's Report Recreation, Arts and Community Services Director, Henry Perezalonso provided an update on the status of the Recreation, Arts and Community Services Department and highlighted some of the activities that have taken place over the past month. For future special events and programs, our department is planning with the current health order guidelines. Informed the commission of the two new appointments to the Commission, Adam Falcon, and Jenna Mesic. 5.2. Commissioners' Reports Commissioner Donovan reported on the Arts Advisory Board meeting. There are many unique and exciting ideas being pursued. Commissioner Fung reported on the Danville Youth Council. They are currently planning the Amazing Race and Battle of the Bands events. 5 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions January 13, 2021 Commissioner Strauch spoke to the Commission about the East Bay Greenway. Chair Joyce reported that she attended the Employee Recognition event. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Henry Perezalonso, Director Recreation, Arts and Corrununity Services Kristine Meidberg, Administrative Assistant Recreation, Arts and Community Services 6 4.3 PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission February 10, 2021 SUBJECT: Review Options for proposed Pickleball Courts in the Town of Danville and Provide Staff with a Recommendation for Action BACKGROUND: The Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan Update (Plan) was adopted by the Town in 2017 establishing a long-range vision and course of action for creating and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks, recreation and arts facilities, services, and programs. The Plan includes several strategic recommendations for how to provide inclusive recreational opportunities for users of all ages including supporting emerging recreation activities to address trends and increase the variety of recreational opportunities available to the community. Pickleball was identified and determined to be a priority recommendation for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (Commission). At the November 12, 2020 Commission meeting, Danville resident Ben Crockett provided a presentation regarding pickleball with a request to consider the restriping and addition of pickleball courts in the Town of Danville. The Commission also received public comment both in support of, and with concerns of, loss of usage to the tennis community. At that meeting, the Commission requested staff provide information regarding the usage of current tennis courts and potential options for pickleball courts in Danville. At the January 13, 2021 Commission meeting, the staff provided a report which included information regarding tennis court reservation usage in the Town and the feasibility of options for adding outdoor pickleball courts in Danville. The options discussed by the Commission included: • Option 1 -a pickleball overlay, creating multi -use tennis/pickleball courts by adding pickleball lines to existing courts; • Option 2- converting one tennis court into exclusive pickleball courts; • Option 3- researching other locations within parks that may be able to be converted into pickleball courts and; • Option 4- not moving forward with any pickleball courts. ATTAnrr& r,•�TT After discussion regarding tennis usage, the options for pickleball and hearing public comments, the Commission recommended staff to move forward with Option 2 at Osage Station Park by converting one tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts by spring or summer of 2021. They also recommended Option 1 as a backup if timing and funding were not lining up to be executed in a timely fashion. DISCUSSION Upon receiving the recommendation from the Commission, staff began further researching the feasibility and option of converting one tennis court to pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Osage Station Park contains four tennis courts; generally, three courts are reservable and one is available for community walk-on use. These courts are primarily reserved by Town tennis programs, league play and commercial renters. Town tennis programs consist of camps, group and private lessons. League play consists of local tennis leagues scheduling their seasons and playoffs for their members. Commercial renters are those businesses who rent the courts to provide group or private lessons to their clients. With the conversion of one court at Osage Station Park, it is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the availability of courts to the programs or rentals who have typically reserved time at these courts. The anticipated change would impact the one court that was made available for walk on use during rentals, which may no longer be available if all three courts are reserved. While inspecting the Osage site, it was determined that a preferred location for a conversion would be Tennis Court B as this court is the furthest away from homes and would help mitigate any potential noise concerns. The site inspection further revealed that the one court conversion would not be able to provide four dedicated pickleball courts. This site will not offer sufficient space between courts for safe play. Any conversion would however provide two dedicated pickleball courts. 60 A court conversion can be completed in a timely manner and can be funded fully by CIP B627 -Tiny Flourishes. Since it has been determined that only two pickleball courts can be safely installed within the footprint of one tennis court, staff requests a recommendation for action to continue to move forward with converting one tennis court into two pickleball courts instead of four or pursue an alternative option. RECOMMENDATION Review options for outdoor pickleball courts in the Town of Danville and provide staff with a recommendation for action. Prepared by: Henry Perezalonso Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director • 7. 3.- •.•1 , U • , r • I ' ' • J!'")! TOWN OF DANVILLE PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SUMMARY OF ACTIONS February 10, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was called to order by Chair Joyce at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was conducted by Teleconference only. 1.1 Roll Cali Administrative Assistant Kristine Meidberg conducted the roll call for attendance: Present: Brittany Beech, Commissioner Kevin Donovan, Commissioner Adam Falcon, Commissioner Kyler Fung, Commissioner Youth Representative Jenna Mesic, Commissioner Alesia Strauch, Commissioner Randall Diamond, Vice -Chair Jane Joyce, Chair Excused: Alec Tappin, Alternate Commissioner 1.2 Announcements Administrative Assistant Kristine Meidberg provided information regarding the format of the meeting and instructions for public comment. 1.3 Introduction of New Commissioners Chair Joyce introduced and welcomed the new Commissioners, Adam Falcon and Jenna Mesic. Commissioner Falcon and Cominissioner Mesic introduced themselves to the Commission. Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions February 10, 2021 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA There were no changes to the order of the agenda. 3. "FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWN" Chair Joyce opened For the Good of the Town for public comment. There were no public comments and Chair Joyce closed the item for comments. 4. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION 4.1. Approval of the Summary of Actions from the January 13, 2021, Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commission Special Meeting. MOTION BY VICE -CHAIR DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STRAUCH, TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS OF THE JANUARY 13, 2021 PARKS, RECREATION, AND ARTS SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7-0-1-0; Commissioner Falcon abstained 4.2 Review and approval of the Eagle Scout Book Box Project Director of Maintenance Services, Dave Casteel introduced Cooper Kennedy an Eagle Scout Candidate who presented his proposal for two Book Exchange Boxes within the Town of Danville. Cooper Kennedy presented to the Commission his proposal to build and install two Book Boxes for his Community Service project needed to earn his Eagle Scout status. He is looking to install at Hap Magee park near the picnic benches and behind the Train Museum in downtown Danville. Commissioners made comments and asked questions that were answered by Mr. Kennedy and Director Casteel. Chair Joyce opened Item 4.2 to public comment. 2 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions February 10, 2021 Kristine Meidberg announced that there was one public comment. Linda Holmes had concerns over the use of treated wood. She heard that treated wood was now considered hazardous waste and wanted to know if the Commission knew of any changes to California laws. Director Casteel addressed her concern. Chair Joyce closed Item 4.2 to public comment. MOTION BY VICE -CHAIR DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BEECH, TO APPROVE THE EAGLE SCOUT BOOK BOX PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED 8-0 4.3 Review Options for proposed Pickleball Courts in the Town of Danville and provide Staff with Recommendation for Action Director of Recreation, Arts, and Community Services, Henry Perezalonso reviewed the four options that were proposed for Pickleball courts at the January 13, 2021 Commission meeting. On the recommendation of the Commission, staff researched Option 2 - converting one tennis court into exclusive pickleball courts and did a site inspection at Osage Park. Director Perezalonso went over the findings of the inspection and let the Commission know that one tennis court at Osage Park would only be able to convert into two pickleball courts as opposed to the four originally stated. The conversion can be done in a timely manner and can be funded fully by the Tiny Flourishes fund. Commissioner's questions and comments were addressed. Chair Joyce opened Item 4.3 to public comment. Kristine Meidberg announced that the Town did receive public comments via email before the cut-off for the meeting. All emails were forwarded to the Commission for review. Linda Holmes asked the Commission to pursue other options due to the noise that will occur between the courts. She expressed concern over the possibility of converting more tennis courts at Osage if pickleball becomes popular. She believes Diablo Vista would be a better location for pickleball. 3 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions February 10, 2021 Stewart Proctor expressed his appreciation for the homework that has been done to bring Pickleball to Danville. He believes that pickleball and tennis players overlap positively, and he does not believe noise will be a concern at Osage Park. Mr. Proctor mentioned that the Pickleball Association's Roaming Ambassadors will help with any questions. Diane Leventhal expressed her concern over the difficulty she experiences in getting court time now during the day. She believes that taking away a tennis court will make it even more difficult. She is also concerned about the noise issue. Chair Joyce closed Item 4.3 to public comment and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. MOTION BY VICE -CHAIR DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DONOVAN, TO PROCEED WITH THE CONVERSION OF THE COURT INDICATED ON THE GOOGLE MAP IN THE AGENDA PACKET INTO TWO PICKLEBALL COURTS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION CARRIED 8-0 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 5.1. March 2021 Joint Meeting with Arts Advisory Board and Town Council Agenda Discussion Recreation, Arts, and Community Services Director, Henry Perezalonso advised the Commission that the upcoming March 10, 2021 meeting will be a joint meeting with the Arts Advisory Board and the Town Council. Director Perezalonso asked the Commission to think about what they would like to discuss with the Town Council. Three topics were suggested: the Town Green, the skate park, and public art. The item was opened to the Commissioners for discussion. 5.2 Recreation, Arts and Community Services Department Director's Report 4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions February 10, 2021 Recreation, Arts, and Community Services Director, Henry Perezalonso provided an update on the status of the Recreation, Arts and Community Services Department and highlighted some of the activities that have taken place over the past month. 5.3 Commissioners' Reports Commissioner Fung updated the Commission on the projects that the Danville Youth Council are currently working on. Commissioner Falcon appreciates and values the culture of the Commission. Commissioner Donovan spoke about the commitment of the Commissioners and welcomed the new Commissioners. Commissioner Strauch reported that TK to 2nd grade classes are back on a hybrid schedule. She thanked the Town for getting the notice out to the community about the shared parks. Vice -Chair Diamond mentioned that there is a New Commissioner Mentor (Vice -Chair Diamond) for any questions the new Commissioners may have. 5 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions February 10, 2021 ADJOURNMENT The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Henry Perezalonso, Director Recreation, Arts and Community Services Kristine Meidberg, Administrative Assistant Recreation, Arts and Community Services 6 TO: SUBJECT: PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4.2 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission July 13, 2022 Review Options for Additional Pickleball Courts and Provide Staff with a Recommendation for Action BACKGROUND: The Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan Update (Plan) was adopted by the Town in 2017. The Plan "establishes a long-range vision and course of action for creating and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks, recreation and arts facilities, services and programs." The Plan includes several strategic recommendations for how to provide inclusive recreational opportunities for users of all ages. This includes supporting emerging recreation activities to address trends and increase the variety of recreational opportunities available to the community. Pickleball is an example of one such activity. Pickleball was determined to be a priority recommendation for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (Commission). Pickleball programming was introduced in Danville through several pop-up events presented by the Recreation, Arts and Community Services staff at a variety of park locations in the Town. Events were held indoors at the Los Cerros Gym as well as outdoors at the basketball courts at Danville South and Sycamore Valley Parks, and at the tennis courts at both Osage Station and Diablo Vista Parks. The goal was to not only introduce the sport but to also show the versatility as to locations where it can be played. At the January 13, 2021 Commission meeting, the staff provided a report which included information regarding tennis court reservation usage in the Town and the feasibility of options for adding outdoor pickleball courts in Danville. The options discussed by the Commission included: • Option 1 - a pickleball overlay, creating multi -use tennis/pickleball courts by adding pickleball lines to existing tennis courts; • Option 2 - converting one tennis court into exclusive pickleball courts; • Option 3 - researching other locations within parks that may be able to be converted into pickleball courts; and, • Option 4 - not moving forward with any pickleball courts. A TT A CHMENT D After discussing tennis court usage, pickleball options, and hearing public comments, the Commission recommended that staff move forward with Option 2 at Osage Station Park by converting one tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts by spring or summer of 2021. They also recommended Option 1 as a backup if timing and funding were not lining up to be executed in a timely fashion. (Attachment A) At its February 10, 2021 meeting, the Commission provided its final approval to move forward with the conversion project, which was completed in April 2021 (Attachment B). This resulted in the Town's first two pickleball courts. As expected, the courts have proven to be extremely popular, particularly during the morning hours, and there appears to be more than enough demand to warrant adding additional courts. DISCUSSION Knowing that pickleball is a priority recommendation for the Commission andthe substantial use the two courts at Osage Station Park receive, staff has performed preliminary site analysis to determine where adding courts may be feasible. Below is a summary of various locations that could be suitable options. Danville South Park Based on the small size and configuration of the park, the only viable option at this site is likely the existing basketball court. Due to its substandard size, the basketball court at Danville South Park provides enough space for only one pickleball court. Conversion of this basketball court to pickleball would reduce the Town's inventory to three. Diablo Vista Park While reviewing potential pickleball locations in early 2021, the Commission expressed a desire to keep the tennis courts at Diablo Vista Park, as well as noting that the existing courts are not optimal for pickleball from an accessibility standpoint due to their distance from the parking lot and restrooms. Other potential locations for new pickleball courts at the park would be the existing basketball and/or sand volleyball courts. The basketball court would provide enough space for two pickleball courts, while the sand volleyball court has enough space for four courts. Converting one or both of these areas to pickleball would reduce the Town's number of basketball courts to three and/ or sand volleyball courts to two. Osage Station Park Following the court conversion last year, the current facility has three tennis courts and two pickleball courts. Potential opportunities to expand the facility exist both to the west and east of the existing courts, as shown below. Expanding to the west, towards the parking lot, could allow for the facility to have a total of three tennis courts and 10 pickleball courts. This area is currently underutilized and consists of a grass knoll and trees. Expanding to the east, while still leaving enough of the grass for the youth athletic leagues that currently use this area, could provide enough space for three tennis courts and 12 pickleball courts. Alternatively, merging the two options and expanding in both directions could result in four tennis courts and 14 pickleball courts. Sycamore Valley Park Locations with enough space to accommodate the installation of pickleball courts include the grass area between the pond and playground (room for eight pickleball courts), and the basketball courts (six pickleball courts). However, the grass area presents similar accessibility issues as Diablo Vista Park, with both parking and restrooins being a relatively long distance away. Additionally, the grass area is the only real open, recreational space within the park. Opting to convert the basketball courts, which continue to receive considerable use, would reduce the Town's inventory to two. •Sycamore Valley Etememery School , Other Locations Locations that were excluded from the potential options include Oak Hill and Hap Magee Ranch Parks, which are passive parks and have historically not been considered appropriate sites for sporting facilities, and the San Ramon Valley and Monte Vista High School tennis courts, as access is restricted for large portions of the day. NEXT STEPS Staff requests a recommendation for further action regarding adding more pickleball courts within the Town. Based on the site(s) chosen, if one is to be chosen, staff will perform more extensive site studies in preparation for the project and return to the Commission if any pertinent information were to arise from this process. Funding has been appropriated for pickleball expansion as part of the 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program and, based on current estimates, the funding should be sufficient for whichever option the Commission may choose. RECOMMENDATION Review Options for Additional Pickleball courts and provide Staff with a recommendation for action. Prepared and Reviewed by: Dave Casteel Maintenance Services Director Attachments: A - January 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions B - February 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions 11�1:t l{,+1 , l' •41 • I IJ. ,I'; ',, I}'l•.1;* • :ro 1 n',L 'v, ti , 1 1:11 ! II'• t rE,17•__ ,PJ ,;jr, Z.. .i l�.l {r—i-, +,s r=�•�l'r _,_:fr 11 l r' i �'!'•F 'F". i frl - Irll 'I „S',- I � _15- '�; ".i1r' C' �r:ii' 1. xiI L '' �i�st:+ , , ;�I `f•J j'1= 11114- I • It ,rt F1fli tri r':? •i , •rq 1[di !r„ ,I(aiinli.fn r71 r7:17_-1' • "1.9')31;f: .#r! ▪ .,•l•• �� Ii1J fn• =.;i r, T"i ��[ I;,{1� rf,s f,ryj+;.1f . 1. ' rr # ,f�fi-tl'3rI/,•, 1�J S' 1ir ' r'},, ; 1 i'• 1 • ,r1'- j, I. 11 { : + '• 1�1 _r _, 'I �' F. , �" 3 e+:l 1.1'1 ,�, I', li,,;r," 11i .r,' I �, `-R • 1 "I 1l'1 . - , � �,� , � it I oc . i , � _ r • I ;.. 1 _L 't — — r'T< 1. •iF+!T•.'rer:i• ii) i .�i1113''1 'l}'1i1, , r, 1 'l, Sir i 1 i Ix 1 i 1T.1 ,*)4' y1 , , 11 .1. 7LJ 1 '`. i ti1;Sr This is intended as a summary of actions only. Persons interested in greater detail may view the meeting video at danville.ca.gov/129/Meetings-Agendas-Minutes. Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission - Special Meeting Summary of Actions July 13, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was called to order by Chair Falcon at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was conducted by teleconference only. 1.1 Roll Call Administrative Assistant Gail Massagli conducted the roll call for attendance: Present: Adam Falcon, Chair Jenna Mesic, Vice Chair Randall Diamond, Commissioner (departed at 8:06pm) Kevin Donovan, Commissioner Sabrina Brandeis, Youth Representative Jane Joyce, Commissioner Joe Lindsey, Commissioner Charles Neary, Commissioner Carol Mascali, Commissioner (departed at 8:08pm) 1.2 Announcements Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant, provided information regarding the format of the meeting and instructions for public comment. 1.3 Introduction of New Commissioners Chair Falcon introduced Commissioner's Carol Mascali and Joe Lindsey. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Parks, Recreation and Arts Meeting Summary of Actions July 13, 2022 There were no changes to the Order of the Agenda. 3. "FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWN" There were no public comments. 4. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION 4.1 Approval of the Summary of Actions from the June 15, 2022, Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOYCE, TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS OF THE JUNE 15, 2022, PARKS, RECREATION, AND ARTS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MOTION CARRIED 8-0-0-0 4.2 Review Options for Additional Pickleball Courts and Provide Staff with a Recommendation for Action Maintenance Services Director Dave Casteel provided an overview review of the options for additional pickleball courts and asked the Commission to provide staff with a recommendation for action. Mr. Casteel informed the Commission, Hap Magee Ranch Park and Oak Hill Park were not included in the report along with school sites due to restricted access. Chair Falcon opened discussion to the Commission. Chair Falcon opened Item 4.2 to public comment. Stewart Proctor, Danville, in support of the addition of pickleball courts at the Osage Station Park, suggested no layovers or lines over the tennis courts and to visit USA Pickleball Association (USAPA) to help with design and layout. Kim Moore, Danville Resident, in support of additional pickleball courts at the Osage Station Park and appreciates the consideration of resources and the timely matter the Town is moving on this for the community. 2 Parks, Recreation and Arts Meeting Summary of Actions July 13, 2022 Eighteen written comments were received before the meeting and forwarded to the Commission for review. Eighteen were in approval of the addition of pickleball courts. Andrea Joseph -Nickels April Burstedt Barbara Yeh Ben Crocket Francie Roberts Ginny Fereira Jackie Adams Jane Ware Joanne McAndrews Dave and Julie Bonnie Mark and Ellie Whitfield Ron Fong Shelley Emerson Sonia Vargas Stephen Blick Steve Bagot Teri Bauhs Valerie Asari Chair Falcon closed item 4.2 to public comments and brought it back to the Commission for follow-up questions. MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MESIC, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MASCALI, TO DIRECT STAFF ON MOVING FORWARD TO RECOMMEND ADDING PICKLEBALL TO OSAGE PARK WITH A MERGE OPTION 3: RESEARCHING OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN PARKS THAT MAY BE ABLE TO BE CONVERTED INTO PICKLEBALL COURTS MOTION CARRIED 8-0-0-0 4.3 Designation of Sub -Committee and Liaison Assignments The Commission discussed the current liaison assignments and made changes to the 2021/2022 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Liaison and AD HOC Committee Assignment Summary to reflect the new assignment designations. 3 Parks, Recreation and Arts Meeting Summary of Actions July 13, 2022 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Recreation, Arts, and Community Services Director's Report Director Henry Perezalonso provided an update on Recreation's programs, staffing, and activities. He discussed the summer's aquatic program swim lesson cancellations and the national lifeguard shortage. The month of July is Parks Makes Life Better Month and Chair Falcon received the proclamation this month. Mr. Perezalonso provided an update regarding Town Council meeting once in August and that the Town Council continues to review the Downtown Master Plan. 5.2 Commissioner's Reports and Comments Youth Representative Brandeis reported she attended Recreation's Kidchella event and enjoyed watching the community playing the pianos that are placed around the Town. Commissioner Joyce provided an updated as the Planning Commission liaison. She reported she highly recommends attending the Music in the Park events. Commissioner Lindsey stated he looks forward to serving on the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission. Commissioner Neary provided an update as the Arts Advisory Board liaison on the July Arts Advisory Board meeting. He informed the Commission to check out the Museum of San Ramon Valley online auction and fundraiser taking place and encourages the public to attend. Commissioner Donovan welcomed new Commissioner's Carol Mascali and Joe Lindsey. He inquired about meeting with the Danville Police Department gaining basic knowledge of how to inform the public when questions are asked regarding preparing for safety. Vice Chair Mesic attended the Town's July 4th Parade and looks forward to participating in next year's parade. She inquired about signage for the 4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Meeting Summary of Actions July 13, 2022 public art exhibit, Picture This. She stated a new Sign -Up Genius for Fall events will be sent out. Chair Falcon advised the Commission he is open to receiving feedback as the Commission's Chair and thanked the Commissioners. 6. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Henry Perezalonso, Director Recreation, Arts and Community Services 127.00,16-e Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant Recreation, Arts and Community Services 5 TO: PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4.3 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission November 9, 2022 SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Additional Pickleball Courts at Osage Station Park BACKGROUND: The Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan Update (Plan) was adopted by the Town in 2017. The Plan "establishes a long-range vision and course of action for creating and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks, recreation and arts facilities, services and programs." The Plan contains several overall recommendations for ways of keeping the Town's park system as relevant as possible. One recommendation is to "Increase the multi- functionality and recreation value of existing parks and facilities through capital improvements that incorporate new recreation facilities and features." A second recommendation is to "Support emerging recreation activities to address trends and add variety to the recreation options in Danville." The plan also specifically "identifies outdoor recreation facilities to consider for Danville's parks system to augment and diversify the existing inventory of sports fields, courts, and playgrounds." Examples identified included a skatepark, disc golf, pickleball, outdoor fitness area, and a destination play area (universally accessible)." The Plan contained some specific recommendations regarding Osage Station Park, including investigating "the possibility of installing a skate park where bocce courts were planned in the park's 30 -year Master Plan." In 2020, the Town Council concluded that a skate park should be located at Diablo Vista Park rather than Osage. The Town's Osage Station Park Master Plan (prepared in 2011) envisioned several possible new uses for the area of the park near the tennis courts. The options identified ranged from the addition of more tennis courts to adding bocce courts to adding a snack shack/community room. As of today, none of those improvements have been added, with bocce being switched fully to Sycamore Valley Park. The Plan includes several strategic recommendations for how to provide inclusive recreational opportunities for users of all ages and the support of emerging recreation activities to address trends and increase the variety of recreational opportunities • TT A !'1T TA A'T71\TT T' available to the community. Pickleball is an example of one such activity. Pickleball was a recommendation brought through the Plan development based on community input and was determined to be a priority recommendation for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (Commission). Pickleball programming was introduced in Danville through several pop-up events presented by the Recreation, Arts, and Community Services staff at a variety of park locations in the Town. Events were held indoors at the Los Cerros Gym, as well as outdoors at the basketball courts at Danville South and Sycamore Valley Parks and at the tennis courts at both Osage Station and Diablo Vista Parks. The goal was to not only introduce the sport but also to show the versatility of locations where it can be played. At the January 13, 2021, Commission meeting, the staff provided a report which included information regarding tennis court reservation usage in the Town and the feasibility of options for adding outdoor pickleball courts in Danville. The options discussed by the Commission included: • Option 1 - a pickleball overlay, creating multi -use tennis/ pickleball courts by adding pickleball lines to existing tennis courts; • Option 2 - converting one tennis court into exclusive pickleball courts; • Option 3 - researching other locations within parks that may be able to be converted into pickleball courts; and, • Option 4 - not moving forward with any pickleball courts. After discussing tennis court usage and pickleball options and hearing public comments, the Commission recommended that staff move forward with Option 2 at Osage Station Park by converting one tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts by the spring or summer of 2021. They also recommended Option 1 as a backup if timing and funding were not lining up to be executed in a timely fashion (Attachment A). Although four courts were approved, ultimately, two were added due to not having enough space to accommodate more within the current court configuration. At its February 10, 2021, meeting, the Commission provided its final approval to move forward with the conversion project, which was completed in April 2021 (Attachment B). This resulted in the Town's first two pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. As expected, the courts have proven to be extremely popular, particularly during the morning hours, and there appears to be more than enough demand to warrant adding additional courts. In June 2022, based on the apparent demand for additional pickleball courts, the Town Council approved the 2022/2023 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, which included CIP Project B-637 Pickleball Courts, to expand the number of courts available at Town parks. The funding is not tied to a particular location within the Town. At its July 13, 2022, meeting, the Commission, based on its priority recommendation of additional pickleball courts and the substantial use of the two courts at Osage Station Park, received and reviewed a preliminary site analysis to determine where adding courts may be feasible (Attachment C). The suitable options at the following parks were reviewed and discussed: • Danville South Park - The basketball court area was considered but was determined not to be a desirable option due to its size, only yielding one pickleball court, and lack of adequate parking or restroom facilities. • Diablo Vista Park - The current tennis courts, basketball court, and sand volleyball court were all considered. However, the Commission has previously expressed a desire to keep the two tennis courts. This location would also be disadvantageous from an accessibility standpoint due to its substantial distance from parking and restroom facilities while also being less than 70 feet from nearby homes. The other two locations would reduce the already -limited inventory of other recreational facilities, be as close as 110 feet to the nearest homes and also not be proximate to restroom facilities. • Osage Station Park - The current courts and adjacent grass area were considered an optimal location because this would expand on an existing facility, make use of an underutilized grass area (particularly to the west), and be in close proximity to restroom and parking facilities. • Sycamore Valley Park - The grass area between the pond and playground, and basketball courts were considered. However, the grass area presents similar accessibility issues as Diablo Vista Park, with both parking and restrooms being a relatively far distance away. Additionally, the grass area is the only real open recreational space available to all residents within the park. Furthermore, the basketball courts are the most heavily utilized within the Town's parks and converting them would significantly impact recreational opportunities available to the community. .+v.':morr val!C, ,crtary Schoc• • Other Locations - Locations that were excluded from the potential options include Oak Hill and Hap Magee Ranch Parks, which are passive parks and have historically not been considered appropriate sites for sporting facilities, and the San Ramon Valley and Monte Vista High School tennis courts, as access is restricted for large portions of the day. After a discussion of the site analysis, the Commission determined Osage Station Park as the optimal location for additional courts. The recommendation was to potentially increase the number of pickleball courts from two to up to 14 courts and the addition of another tennis court to bring the total number back to four tennis courts. DISCUSSION Based on the site chosen as most feasible, staff was to perform a more extensive site analysis looking at the number of courts, operational issues, and additional amenities, with this being brought back to the Commission with all pertinent information. Since the July meeting, staff has been working through the process, including obtaining additional community feedback, which has been provided to the Commission, staff, and Town Council directly from residents both in favor and in opposition of the addition of courts. This community feedback has come in the form of emails, phone calls, and comments at public meetings. As the Commission continues to evaluate the project to add additional pickleball courts, the information contained in this report should be taken into consideration. Although there has been and continues to be a strong show of support by residents for additional courts, there are also a number of residents who live nearest the park who have raised a variety of concerns. Areas of concern for those opposing the additional courts included the number of additional courts recommended, the hours of operation, potential noise considerations, safety concerns, and traffic conditions near the park. Each of these and more are discussed separately below. Noticing of Meetings As a preliminary matter, members of the public have inquired about what public notice was provided for prior meetings where pickleball has been discussed by the Commission and/ or the Town Council. Notice of all meetings of the Commission and Town Council are posted on the Town's website, along with agendas and staff reports. Neither state law nor the Danville Municipal Code requires mailed notice of potential park improvements. However, it has been the Town's practice that when specific, significant improvements are proposed at a specific park, notice will be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of that park, in much the same way that notice for development applications is handled. The July 13th discussion item was not focused on Osage Station Park and did not contain a staff recommendation for which potential park site was preferred. Environmental Review The proposed addition of some number of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a minor addition to an existing facility. This is based on the addition of courts to an existing 25 -acre community park with existing active sports uses, including four baseball fields, soccer fields, batting cages, tennis and pickleball courts, as well as the adjacent outdoor recreation areas of Charlotte Wood Middle School. However, the review and analysis of the project contained in this staff report address the issues raised by affected neighbors. Hours of Operation Prior to the July 2022 Commission meeting, there had been no concerns shared with the Town regarding the use of the current pickleball courts or the operating hours dating back to when they first opened in April 2021. The hours of operation have mirrored the hours that the park is open, typically from dawn to dusk. Since the July 2022 meeting, there have been comments made by residents that the current pickleball use has begun as early as 6:30 am, which has been a concern of the neighbors. Once additional courts are made available, the court use would be limited, with the hours of operation being restricted to 8:00 am to dusk. These hours of operation would be similar to the established use by youth sports groups, who are permitted use of the fields at Osage Station Park. Beyond the limited hours, staff would anticipate providing recreation leagues, classes, and camps which would take priority of use at the courts as is current practice with the tennis courts. Additional programming of the courts may also be implemented to limit the amount of concentrated drop-in play throughout the day. Examples of programming limitations beyond restricted playing hours could include the rental of courts for a specific block of time only and not allowing rentals for commercial use, league play, or tournaments not associated with the Town. Limiting the types of play on the courts may not limit the number of total users of the courts; however, it could structure the play in a way that provides a continued balance of use throughout the park with all its community uses. Sound Considerations Pickleball has a reputation for noise associated with the game, primarily based on the sound the ball makes off the paddle as well as the celebrations of the players. This is a genuine concern in every municipality, especially when close to residential areas. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states that when an individual is exposed to 90 decibels (dBa) or greater for eight hours or more, that noise exposure becomes dangerous. Information provided by online articles written by the Racket Sports World and Bob Unetich of Pickleball Sound Mitigation, surrounding the noise of pickieball, has shared results of studies done to measure sound levels. These studies have found that the average sound associated with pickieball comes to around 70 dBa from about 100 feet away from the strike of the ball within sound reduction efforts. This reading is a weighted scale for judging loudness that corresponds to the decibel readings adjusted, taking into account the varying sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies, as posted by Soft dB, Acoustics & Sound Masking Experts in an online article posted in May 2019. Town staff has also reviewed three other acoustical studies of pickieball courts to provide information. These studies include a 2019 study for the City of Pacific Grove (https: / / sagaponackvillage.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2022/04 /Extant-Pickleball- Noise-Study.pdf), a 2012 study prepared for Sun City, Arizona (https: / / scwpickleballclub.files.wordpress.cor/ 2012/ 10/ scg-sound-study.pdf) and a 2022 study prepared for an HOA in Bend, Oregon (https: / / www.rivercanyonestates.com/file / document/ 1829129837/LgiCFPc9UDWh70 2B.pdf). While these studies contain some findings not relevant to Danville (the Town does not have a decibel level maximum), they confirm the general consensus that the noise generated by pickieball is between 60-70 dBa, without any sound attenuation measures. Below is a list of sound sources taken from Decibel Meter Pro, copyright 2022, that are 70 dBa-equivalent (on average) or above: Activity Decibel Normal Conversation 60-70 Open Office Noise 65-70 Vacuum Cleaner 60-80 Alarm clock 70-80 Dishwasher/Washing Machine 70 Restaurant 70-80 Playground noise 80 Traffic (inside the car) 80-85 Lawnmower 80-90 With the understanding that all park activities produce certain levels of sound or noise associated with it, the following are options to assist in the reduction of noise, specifically to address sound coming from additional pickleball courts. Placement of Courts Most residential neighborhoods within Danville typically have ambient noise levels of between 50-60 dBa. Homes that are 200 feet or more from courts should expect the decibel levels to lessen from the average of 70 dBa to about 64 dBa, and homes that are 400 feet away would lessen to about 58 dBa. The proposed location of the courts would all be on the facility's north side, farther away from the homes, particularly those on El Capitan Drive. The proposed expansion would result in the closest pickleball court being approximately 150 feet away from the closest Orange Blossom Way homes if the project expands westward or 200 feet if not, and 250 feet away from the closest El Capitan Drive homes. The tennis courts would all be on the facility's south side and act as a further noise buffer. For comparison, the four -court facility at Cedar Rose Park in Berkeley is as close as 20 feet to the nearest residence, the eight -court facility at Rutgear Park in Walnut Creek is as close .as 75 feet to the nearest home, and the 16 -court facility at Willow Pass Park in Concord is approximately 150 feet to the nearby homes. Sound Barrier on Fencing One primary method other municipalities have used to help mitigate noise from pickleball is to install a barrier on the fencing, similar to windscreens but designed to block noise. A company that produces a commonly used pickleball noise barrier has provided Town staff with noise studies that, at 100 feet away, showed a reduction of between 13 and 19 dBa when using the barrier. Research by Town staff of other facilities using this type of screening supports these findings. Based on the information above, that would suggest that dBa readings from 200 feet away would range from 45-57 with the use of sound barriers. Equipment The sport of pickleball is not only a fast-growing sport but is also an evolving sport. As such, there are manufacturers who are now making equipment that may assist in mitigating some sound issues. There is a list of approved paddles that came from the City of Surprise, Arizona, that have been shown through studies to be quieter (Attachment D). An option to assist in addressing any noise concerns would be to require only approved equipment to be utilized at the Town's facilities. Applicability of the Town's Noise Ordinance Chapter 4-2.3 of the Town's Municipal Code establishes standards for noise within the Town. The ordinance does not contain any specific standards, such as maximum decibel limits. Rather, it takes a broader look at preventing unusual or unnecessary noise by looking at factors such as volume, proximity to residences, the nature of the area where the noise is being generated, time of day, etc. The Town has largely addressed noise issues in its parks by limiting hours of use and location of amenities. As an example, at Osage Station Park, which is used extensively for youth and adult sports, we limit noise impacts by regulating hours of use and not allowing sports field lighting. Given the existing noise generated by park usage and Charlotte Wood Middle School, the addition of pickleball courts with some or all of the measures described above would not violate the noise ordinance. Safety Considerations Safety of Park The Danville Police Department was sought out for information regarding any issues or safety concerns that may have been associated with pickleball. A search was conducted of all reports and calls for service for an 18th -month period beginning in April of 2021, including calls into Dispatch, where no report was written by an officer at Osage Station Park. There were 99 calls for service during that period which included broken fountains, sprinkler issues, lost items, and juvenile noise disturbances. A search for the word "pickle" and then for "ball" produced no calls related to pickleball court usage; however, the only results found were for baseball -related issues. That is not to say that there may not be a complaint using a different search language, but there were none seen regarding pickleball courts. In another search done by the Police Department, there have been a total of three collisions near the park since April 2021, one of which was a non -injury collision in the north parking lot, one was an injury collision between a vehicle and pedestrian in the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot during the drop-off period, and one was a non -injury collision east of the school on El Capitan. rj 9i i.0 0 r veat Osage Park Playground Ioshll� S�kil!',cln Ortega Park Osage Park Charlotte Woud - ? Prckle Bail courts Middle School ecnOtanry flcOlen M b. at caaaa, L`p w 4 Dr Danwlle Place OA o` �J 9 Et cartOe Safety of Students The Town has been in contact with the School District, which has shared that as always, they have a commitment to ensure any new facilities that the Town puts in place near their schools don't have an impact on school operations and instructional programming. Furthermore, in an effort to further provide safety for the students at Charlotte Wood Middle School, a crossing guard analysis was completed, and the School District has recently approved a crossing guard position, to help during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. Once the position is filled, the crossing guard will be utilized at the crosswalk located on El Capitan Drive at the intersection with Brookside Drive/school exit. The position opened for recruitment on September 30, 2022 and will remain open until filled. Flood Zone Concerns from the residents addressed the potential impact of a flood zone at the park near the current courts. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), this area is not a flood zone and is an area of minimal flood hazard as captured by the FEMA map. The Town's Engineering division has looked at the proposed project in relation to existing drain inlets in this area of the park. It has concluded that they can be effectively relocated, if necessary. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette e FEMA Legend t ;.wtta�..m. trr_ea aAe; WEL. 51.000 ^1°ewa nems r" MUM, MK. OIHFRM1fA5 ODIUM SSOUCNHFS 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 Traffic & Parking Considerations 2.000 1:6,000 4ssm.p: US05M.Oona/MapO1Ntlmadery: 05. mtn/ .Otlebee.2020 ANP PAWLS 0 n. Mw¢t chem Mded xewu Maas al d..m.wn¢e., decd mm me�aRe atott am& et los ..teat.:. Putx 14.515 `5 ".7 -77emssae Anttomee v. Mod 4hdue wtam :...: wma: 5.aM mecoex.e«e :,... Maur tadete wba..meed. t.tt ee lama We. 5, m.aen ans a.m..0 wn 1,1.15.15155, watt. ,51.O.ueea o>.mt Tram... _ _VF gemF.me.aom lNerzrtt thmnant dmthmten Mummy .— 05.5 te5 .acne•., apwn.ae Mem..y ao thpw Pemawe.hh tnw.oeed wee e'e a sy.I. n ex mT ¢ n.PYmNue tam 5t4ne5q lM uw amt. nom.. n eotMraw�mwoP.rta Ween. wdt.55,¢µe. W I1M. sta.. b theme( m 2Atn. ..etroM n amx.e f . matom tm m itmetarmat 1M amehv..m¢tm h dxheddo.dh tame Ihrtheiltddy0.uePe¢edAA& mi. Pends',mu take.. ..x.q Hrpr eewm�dn linmewuepwt u tM.. nJ MxMldbYbyrmawpmey byre w�ea aeennk eee.e.ed.o by tum Data as 1brc TM. mapla.g e.wd u to c,e e; m.e nue M*•*a mop ra uawewe` oue.t°"w.m wwiammtm t,ONane h, m .w�n., 515,5,.5, mi w, eegx+e.,r r�,w nwo.� Although the proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA analysis as previously described, a cursory traffic and parking generation analysis has been conducted to evaluate vehicle trips and parking demand that would be generated by the proposed project to ensure that the connecting roadway and parking lot facilities are sufficient to accommodate proposed pickleball court options. Trip Generation Trip generation refers to the process of estimating added vehicle traffic a project or facility would add to the surrounding roadway network. Trip generation estimates are typically prepared to assess both peak -hour and full-day periods. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual is a national compilation of trip generation statistics categorized by land use that is the standard methodology applied to prepare such analyses. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for ITE Land Use Code 490, Tennis Courts. ITE data does not contain data specific to pickleball, therefore, the trip generation was estimated using the most -relevant available ITE land use (Tennis Courts) as it provides similar operational characteristics and considering that the project concepts consist of combined uses with tennis courts. Table 2 summarizes the application of the trip generation rate for a project concept consisting of 14 pickleball courts with retainment of four (4) tennis courts for a total of 18 courts, where Table 3 summarizes a project concept of eight (8) pickleball courts with retainment of three (3) tennis courts for a total of 11 courts. Table 1 — ITE Trip Generation Rate ITE Land Use Code 490 Land Use Tennis Courts Vehicle Trip Generation Rate (per court) Peak Hour Avg. Daily 4.21 30.32 Table 2 — Trip Generation, Existing + Project Concept (18 courts - 14 Pickleball & 4 Tennis) Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Peak Hour Total Daily In Out Total Traffic Volume 11 10 21 152 Use Description Existing ' 1 Units (Courts) Proposed (net new) Totals 3 15 3 18 28 27 55 394 39 37 76 546 ' Three (3) Tennis/Two (2) Pickleball Courts 2 One (1) Tennis/Twelve (12) Pickleball Courts Four (4) Tennis Courts/Fourteen (14) Pickleball Courts Table 3 — Trip Generation, Existing + Project Concept (11 courts - 8 Pickleball & 3 Tennis) Units (Courts) 5 11 10 21 Use Description Existing 1 Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Peak Hour Total Daily In Out Total Traffic Volume 152 Proposed (net new) 6 13 12 25 182 Totals 3 1 Three (3) Tennis/Two (2) Pickleball Courts 2 Six (6) Pickleball Courts 3 Three (3) Tennis/Eight (8) Pickleball Courts 11 24 22 46 334 As the next step in this analysis, the trip generation for average daily traffic trips are applied to the existing traffic volumes of the immediate adjacent roadways connecting to the Osage Station Park south parking lot. Specifically, these roadways are identified as El Capitan Drive (south of the parking lot entry) and Orange Blossom Way (north of the parking lot entry). In the Town of Danville's 2030 General Plan, these roads are classified as Collector and Local Residential roads, respectively. The road classifications, range of acceptable average daily traffic volumes (roadway "volume capacity"), and the most - recent recorded average daily traffic volumes are summarized as follows (Table 4): Table 4 — Roadway Classifications & Existing Traffic Volume Conditions Road Classification Road Classification Volume Capacity (vehicles per day) Average Daily Traffic Volume (vehicles per day) El Capitan Drive Minor Collector 3,500 — 10,000 3,021 Orange Blossom Way Local (Residential) <1,500 1,037 As El Capitan Drive is the more major road of the two routes and considering it is more of a direct route from surrounding populous areas such as south Danville, San Ramon, downtown Danville, and I-680, it can be assumed that the majority of vehicle trips to and from the site would use El Capitan Drive. As a conservative approach, the following summary assumes that vehicle trip distribution generated by the facility is split 50%-50%, with traffic volumes summarized as follows (Table 5): Table 5 —Traffic Volume Summary, Existing + Project Concepts (18 & 11 -court cot Road Existing Traffic Volume Existing + Project Daily Traffic Volume 50o/a_50% split ) L Road Classification Volume Capacity (vehicles per day) 18 -Court Concept 11 -Court Concept El Capitan Drive 3,021 3,294 3,188 3,500 — 10,000 Orange Blossom Way 1,037 1,310 1,204 <1,500 Total traffic volumes for both project concepts, assuming a 50% trip distribution split, would result in acceptable traffic volumes for the two connecting roads, per the Town of Danville 2030 General Plan. As an additional conservative illustration in Table 5, the total project trip generation (existing + project concepts) is aggregated with the existing traffic volumes, where existing traffic volumes include trips generated by the existing tennis and pickleball court configurations. Parking Demand The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation Manual is a national compilation of parking generation statistics categorized by land use that is the standard methodology applied to analyze parking demand and assists in determining parking supply requirements for facilities. As with the trip generation manual, available ITE data does not contain data specific to pickleball; therefore, the traffic was estimated using ITE Land Use 490, Tennis Courts (Table 6). Table 6 - ITE Parking Generation Rate ITE Land Use Code Land Use Parking Generation Peak Ilour Rate 490 Tennis Courts 2.67 The existing Osage Station Park south parking lot contains 64 parking spaces with a 35 - foot -long passenger loading zone area along the curb frontage adjacent to the existing tennis/pickleball courts. Tables 7 and 8 describe the parking demand for the two previously described project concepts consisting of 14 pickleball courts with retainment of four (4) tennis courts for a total of 18 courts, and eight (8) pickleball courts with retainment of three (3) tennis courts for a total of 11 courts. Table 7 - Parking Generation, Existing + Project Concept (18 courts - 14 Pickleball & 4 Tennis) Peak Hour Demand Summary %-use of Osage South Parking Lot (64 spaces) Use Description Units (Courts) Peak Period Totals Existing Use 1 14 22% Proposed (net new) 2 Totals 3 13 35 55% 18 49 75% ' Three (3) Tennis/Two (2) Pickleball Courts 2 One (1) Tennis/Twelve (12) Pickleball Courts Four (4) Tennis Courts/Fourteen (14) Pickleball Courts k�� Generation Existing +Project Concept (11 courts - 8 Pickleball & 3 Tennis) Use Description Units (Courts) Parking Demand Summary Peak Period Totals %-use of Osage South Parking Lot (64 spaces) Existing Use 1 5 14 21% Proposed (net new) 2 6 16 25% Totals 3 11 30 47% ' Three (3) Tennis/Two (2) Pickleball Courts 2 Six (6) Pickleball Courts 3 Three (3) Tennis/Eight (8) Pickleball Courts Based on ITE parking generation rates, the peak period parking demand for the 11 -court concept (Table 8) is 30 parked vehicles. The 64 -space Osage Station Park south parking lot would appear to be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand anticipated for the addition of eight (8) pickleball courts and existing park uses. The peak period parking demand for the 18 -court concept (Table 7) is 49 parked vehicles. Although the parking supply for this option may be adequate, there may be periods of time when other coinciding peak period park uses, or other short-term events, such as morning and afternoon school pick-up/drop-off activity from nearby Charlotte Wood Middle School, would put the parking lot at full capacity. Based on staff site observations of the morning and afternoon school pick-up and drop- off activity in the parking lot, it was found that parking lot usage generated by the activity resulted in the utilization of parking spaces in a range between 20-25 parking spaces for a roughly 30 -minute period, with the peaks between 7:45 - 8:15 a.m. in the morning period, and 2:30 - 3:00 p.m. (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) and 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. (Wednesdays) in the afternoons. Additional pick-up/drop-off activity included utilization of the curbside passenger loading zone and red curbed area at the parking lot entry, with consistent curbside pick-up and drop-off activity occurring throughout the peak periods. As previously described, parking spaces were utilized by drivers for pick- up/drop-off activity and who were assumed not to opt to wait in the curbside queue. Vehicular circulation into the parking lot and access to the parking stalls (whether for park users or student pick-up/drop-off activity) was not obstructed by the school pick- up or drop-off queues. Number of Proposed Courts Although the recommended number of additional courts to review was up to 14 total, based on additional study and community input, it is recommended that the Commission consider adjusting the number of courts to no more than eight pickleball courts and three tennis courts. With fewer courts, a seating area with benches and shading could be included, which could be used by pickleball players, tennis players, viewers of sports on the adjacent grass field, or other park users. The addition of fewer courts would address any appropriate sound and usage mitigation measures. Below are three potential concepts with fewer courts and seating areas that could be considered. 8 - Courts Concept with Seating PROPOSED CONCEPT Current Dimensions: IOU• by 330' Picklebell Minimum Width: 130' Tennis Minimum Width:148' Seating Area 6 - Courts Concept with Seating PROPOSED CONCEPT Current Dimensions: 100' by 230' Plckiabell Minimum Width: 100 TenMs Minimum Width: 148' Smiting Area 6 - Courts Concept with two Seating Areas PROPOSED CONCEPT Current Dimensions: 100' by 230' Pkkuball Minimum WidtIt 100' Tennis Minimum Width: 146 Seating Area NEXT STEPS Staff requests a consideration to approve additional pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Once approved, staff will move forward into a design phase and then construction which would take into consideration comments and concerns of the Commission and through public comments. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funding has been appropriated for pickleball expansion as part of the 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program. RECOMMENDATION Consider approval of additional pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Prepared and Reviewed by: Dave Casteel Maintenance Services Director 4/? -e• - Henry Perezalonso Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Attachments: A - January 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions B - February 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions C - July 2022 Staff Report and Summary of Actions D - List of Paddles DocuSign Envelope ID: A7EE1251-98C2-44B1-8CB3-4E92558A24F4 4.1 This is intended as a summary of actions only. Persons interested in greater detail may view the meeting video at danville.ca.gov/129/Meetings-Agendas-Minutes. Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting Summary of Actions November 9, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission special meeting was called to order by Chair Falcon at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was conducted by teleconference only. 1.1 Roll Call Administrative Assistant Gail Massagli conducted the roll call for attendance: Present: Randall Diamond, Commissioner Kevin Donovan, Commissioner Jane Joyce, Commissioner Joe Lindsey, Commissioner Carol Mascali, Comznissioner Charles Neary, Commissioner Jenna Mesic, Vice Chair Adam Falcon, Chair Excused: Sabrina Brandeis, Youth Representative 1.2 Announcements Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant, provided information regarding the format of the meeting and instructions for public comment. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA There were no changes to the Order of the Agenda. DocuSign Envelope ID: A7EE1251-98C2-44B1-8CB3-4E92558A24F4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting Summary of Actions November 9, 2022 3. "FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWN" There were no public comments For the Good of the Town. 4. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION 4.1 Consider Approval of the Summary of Actions from the October 12, 2022, Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MESIC, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DIAMOND, TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS OF THE OCTOBER 12, 2022, PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MOTION CARRIED 8-0-0-1; YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE BRANDEIS EXCUSED 4.2 Consider Adoption of Resolution 2022-01, Establishing a Regular Meeting Schedule for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOYCE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEARY, TO APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2022-01, ESTABLISHING A REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION MOTION CARRIED 8-0-0-1; YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE BRANDEIS EXCUSED 4.3 Consider Approval of Additional Pickleball Courts at Osage Station Park Director Henry Perezalonso presented a PowerPoint presentation discussing the additional pickleball courts proposed for Osage Station Park and responded to questions from the Commission. Chair Falcon opened the item to public comment. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park: Group speaker Kim Moore on behalf of Ben Crockett, Frankie Avella, Bee Kilgore, Steven Carver, Suzie Hjorth, Becky & Dan Jones, and Jai Selland. Teresa Jacobs Mark Lowe DocuSign Envelope ID: A7EE1251-98C2-44B1-8CB3-4E92558A24F4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting Summary of Actions November 9, 2022 Stewart Proctor Joel Crockett Joanne (no last name given) Carl Taibl Cindy Comes and Steve Comes Andreas Nickels Shelley Emerson The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park: Chuck Preas Anthony Romanelli Mandi Newton William Stone Kolisa Larue Roger Johnson John Somers Jennifer Jo Wiseman Lauri Ochoa Mark Seller Gina Cefalu Paulick Cindy Abercrombie Camillo Pereira Michael Mundle Matt Sweeney Terri Costello Diane Preas Evan (no last name given) Rick Ochoa Emily Romanelli Allen Scott Kim Van Hoesen Michelle Londaree Priscilla Graft Sandra (nolast name given) Oliver Larue Michelle Levie Laura Robblee The following individuals addressed the Commission regarding the proposed addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park: Mark Currington Faye Isaacson Fifty -Six written comments were received in advance of the meeting and forwarded to the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission for review: Gary Caires Bonnie Tenorio Jairam Kamath Sonia Vargas 3 Karen Davis Kathy Sostaric Patricia Walker Amit Raghavan DocuSign Envelope ID: A7EE1251-98C2-44B1-8CB3-4E92558A24F4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting c._ c A +; JU11U1lary J1 I1ll1VJ. `LJ November 9, 2022 Tom Caldwell Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman Linda Leonardini Teri Bauhs Bob Harley & Karen Treat Victoria Williams Landis Ruiz Sharon Gutierrez John Somers Peter van Biljouw Neil Gutierrez Rick Corella Carol Manuel Jane Raquel Kaaren Slocum John and Laura Robblee Matt Newton Irina Chapman Jeannine Regalia Laura Robblee Steve & Cindy Comes Patrick Hawthorn Andrea Joseph -Nickels Ron Fong Patrick McKenzie P.J. Rick Ochoa Connie Blackwood Barbara Fong Diane Meacham Preas Willmin Tang Roger Johnson Calvin Wong Barbara Yeh Leeann Brown Melanie Huff Eric Huff Julia Philbert Jennifer Jo Wiseman Kim Van Hoesen Oskar Nadjari Chuck Wong Ted Van Hoesen Carl Taibl Anthony Romanelli Thomas Philbert Jane Stanton Carl Taibl Chair Falcon dosed the item to public comment. After discussion, the Commission made a unanimous decision to continue this meeting to November 30, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. via teleconference. 6. ADJOURNMENT DocuSign Envelope ID: A7EE1251-98C2-44B1-8CB3-4E92558A24F4 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission and Arts Advisory Board Joint Special Meeting Summary of Actions November 9, 2022 The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. DocuSigned by: OD2D7379EC1D484... Henry Perezalonso, Director Recreation, Arts and Community Services EDocuSigned by: 02,#: hloode BF48CA003042439... Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant Recreation, Arts and Community Services 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 385CC390-FB11-4BAD-9325-048FFDDF5932 4.2 This is intended as a summary of actions only. Persons interested in greater detail may view the meeting video at danville.ca.gov/129/Meetings-Agendas-Minutes. Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting Summary of Actions November 30, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission special meeting was called to order by Chair Falcon at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was conducted by teleconference only. 1.1 Roll Call Administrative Assistant Gail Massagli conducted the roll call for attendance: Present: Randall Diamond, Commissioner Kevin Donovan, Commissioner Jane Joyce, Commissioner Joe Lindsey, Commissioner Carol Mascali, Commissioner Charles Neary, Commissioner Jenna Mesic, Vice Chair Adam. Falcon, Chair Sabrina Brandeis, Youth Representative 1.2 Announcements Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant, provided information regarding the format of the meeting and instructions for public comment. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA There were no changes to the Order of the Agenda. 3. "FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWN" DocuSign Envelope ID: 385CC390-FB11-4BAD-9325-048FFDDF5932 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Special Meeting Summary of Actions November 30, 2022 Eighteen written comments were received in advance of the meeting and forwarded to the Commission for review. Amy Schmidbauer Melanie Huff Abigail Sexton Wendy Burman Alice Hughell Russ and Nora Lahive Kurt Glazier Patty Gross Carol Lane Kolisa Larue 4. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION Faye Isaacson Rick Williams Dia Mundle Steve Chapman Gina Cefalu Paulick Richard Segol Dr. Clouser Julia Philbert 4.1 Consider Approval of Additional Pickleball Courts at Osage Station Park - CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2022 Director Henry Perezalonso and City Attorney Rob Ewing provided an update to the Commission and responded to questions raised during public comment at the November 9, 2022, Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission meeting. Chair Falcon opened up discussion for Commissioner comments. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOYCE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT A CEQA INITIAL STUDY, INCLUDING RETAINING AN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT, TO LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A PICKLEBALL PROJECT AT OSAGE STATION PARK WITH A MAXIMUM PROJECT UP TO 8 PICKLEBALL COURTS AND 4 TENNIS COURTS, ALONG WITH BENCH SEATING NEAR THE COURTS MOTION CARRIED 8-0-0-0 5. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION 5.1 Recreation, Arts and Community Services Department Director's Report DocuSign Envelope ID: 385CC390-FB11-4BAD-9325-048FFDDF5932 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Summary of Actions November 30, 2022 Director, Henry Perezalonso provided an update on Recreation's events and activities. 5.2 Commissioners' Reports and Comments Commissioners provided updates on events and activities in Danville. 6. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. , —DocuSigned by: ' 0D2D7370ECFD494... Henry Perezalonso, Director Recreation, Arts and Community Services DocuSigned by: 8r48CA003042439... Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant Recreation, Arts and Community Services 3 Onix Sports/S-Type Z5 Widebody Green Zone Approved for use in Sun City Grand. ONLY BUY PADDLES LISTED IN THE GREEN ZONE. Paddles not on this list may not be used on SCG Pickleball courts. • PaddleBoardZ Tracker Paddletek Bantam EX -L Paddletek Bantam EX -L Pro Paddletek Bantam Sabre Pro Paddletek Bantam TS -5 Paddletek Bantam TS -5 Pro Paddletek Element Paddletek Phoenix G6 Paddletek Phoenix Genesis Paddletek Phoenix Genesis Pro Paddletek Phoenix Pro Paddletek Power Pro Play Paddletek Stratus Paddletek Sweet Spot Paddletek Tempest Paddletek Tempest Reign Pro Paddletek Tempest Wave Pro Paddletek Ultra Sweet Spot Paddletek Ultra Warp 9 Paddletek Wave 11 Pickle -Ball Inc Champion Eclipse Pickle -Ball Inc Champion Graphite Elite Pickle -Ball Inc Champion Graphite X Pickle -Ball Inc Champion Graphite XL Pickle -Ball Inc Champion PolyPro Pickle -Ball Inc Champion Spark Pickle -Ball Inc. Attack (Graphite - Aluminum) Pickle -Ball Inc. Attack 2.0 Pickle -Ball Inc. Elite (Graphite - Aluminum) Pickle -Ball Inc. Elite Finesse Pickle -Ball Inc. Elite Power Pickle -Ball Inc. Elite Skill Pickle -Ball Inc. Venom Pickleball International Pursue Graphite Pickleball International Tidal Wave Graphite Pickleball International Velocity Graphite Pickleball Now Classic Lite (edgeless, discontinued) Pickleball Now Classic Metalite Pickleball Now Club (wood) Pickleball Now Force Classic Pickleball Now PN2000 Pickleball Now _ The Edge Pickleball Now The Force Metalite Pickleball Now Whomper Pickleball Now XL Lite PickleballCentral Rally Flare PickleballCentral Rally Graphite Power 5.0 PickleballCentral Rally PX Graphite PickleballCentral Rally PXL Graphite PickleballCentral Rally PXT Graphite PickleballCentral Rally Tyro 2 PickleballCentral Rally Tyro 2 Pro PicklePaddles Plus Hyper Wide PicklePaddles Plus Nexus Alloy PicklePro Barricade POP Aluminum AMHC POP ATHC Aluminum Tear Drop Honeycomb POP AXLHC ProKennex Ovation Speed ProKennex Pro Speed PROLITE Sports Apex Power PROLITE Sports Blaster PROLITE Sports Bolt PROLITE Sports Chrome N-R-G PROLITE Sports Covert PROLITE Sports Crush Power Spin PROLITE Sports Crush Power Spin 2.0 PROLITE Sports Cypher Pro PROLITE Sports Enforcer Graphite PROLITE Sports Groove PROLITE Sports Ignite (I Series) PROLITE Sports Illuminate 2.0 (I Series) PROLITE Sports Magnum XP PROLITE Sports Power PROLITE Sports Rebel Power Spin PROLITE Sports Rival Power Spin 2.0 PROLITE Sports Rocket XL PROLITE Sports Rockstar PROLITE Sports Skyline PROLITE Sports Supernova Black Diamond Series Pro PROLITE Sports Surface NRG PROLITE Sports Titan PROLITE Sports Titan Pro RiverStyks Fox Orange RiverStyks Fox Purple RiverStyks Rubicon Selkirk 200PXL Selkirk 300AXL Selkirk Amp X5 Invikta McGuffin Selkirk EPIC 20PXL Composite Selkirk Epic 30PXL Graphite Selkirk Epic Amped X5 Fiberflex Selkirk Epic Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Lightweight Selkirk Epic Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Midweight Selkirk Invikta Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Lightweight Selkirk Invikta Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Midweight Selkirk Labs Project 002 Invikta Selkirk Labs Project 003 Epic Selkirk Labs Project 003 Invikta Selkirk Labs Project 003 S2 Selkirk Latitude Composite Wide Body Selkirk Mach6 Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Lightweight Selkirk Mach6 Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Midweight Selkirk Maxima 21P MXO Selkirk Maxima Amped X5 Fiberflex Selkirk Maxima Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Lightweight Selkirk Maxima Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Midweight Selkirk Neo Selkirk Omni Selkirk Omni Amped X5 Fiberflex Selkirk Pro S1C Selkirk Pro SIC+ Selkirk Pro SIG Selkirk Pro S1G+ Selkirk S2 Amped X5 Fiberflex Selkirk S2 Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Lightweight Selkirk S2 Vanguard X5 Quadcarbon Midweight Selkirk SLK Atlas Graphite Selkirk SLK Latitude Graphite Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Epic Lightweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Epic Midweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Invikta Lightweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 lnvikta Midwei.ht Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Mach6 Lightweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Mach6 Midweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Maxima Lightweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Maxima Midweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Omni Lightweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 Omni Midweight Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 S2 Selkirk Vanguard 2.0 S2 Lightweight Selkirk Vanguard Power Air Epic Midweight Selkirk Vanguard Power Air lnvikta Selkirk Vanguard Power Air S2 Sweet Pickle Sweet Pickle Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD-CE Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD-CH Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD-CI Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KB Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KE Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KG Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KH Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KI TMPR Sports Sports Tantrum V TMPR Sports Tantrum GXT Enhanced Graphite Topp Graphite XJ-900 Topp Reacher Graphite Topp Revive Topp Viper Topp XJ-900 Topp Reacher Wilson Champ Wilson Surge ZZT Carbon Fiber Weave ZZT Contour Thin (lite) ZZT EVO Classic-Q ZZT EVO II ZZT EVO II Vinyl Cover ZZT Fuzion ZZT Fuzion Pro ZZT Graphic ZZT Original ZZT Z Grand Pickleball Club Paddle Sound Study Sort by Manufacturer and Model - October 8, 2022 Brand Model Usage Armour Pickleball Helix Coach Mo Sweet Spot Coach Mo Sweet Spot Lite Engage Pickleball Encore GP Engage Pickleball Encore Max Engage Pickleball Encore XL Engage Pickleball Raven Wide Body Franklin Pickleball Gamma Sports Gamma Sports CM Atomic Fusion Gamma Sports Gamma Sports Ion Micron Gamma Sports Mirage Gamma Sports Head Voltage Radical Pro L Manta Pro -Team Manta Stingray Manta Tornado F5 & Manta Ray Nomex Core Onix Sports Phantom Widebody Onix Sports/S-Type Onix Sports/S-Type Onix Sports/S-Type Core 2 Composite Storm Storm Graphite Onix Sports/S-Type Paddletek Stryker Graphite Warp 9 Pickleball Depot Pickle -Ball Inc. Victory CF3 Champion (Fiberglass -Aluminum) Pickle -Ball Inc. Champion (Graphite-Nomex) Pickle -Ball Inc. Champion Aluminum Pickle -Ball Inc. Champion Graphite Pickle -Ball Inc. Elite (Graphite - New Paper Core) Pickle -Ball Inc. Legacy Pickle -Ball Inc. Revolution (Graphite - Nomex) Pickle -Ball Inc. Tracer Pickle -Ball Inc. Vortex 2.0 Pickleball Now Classic Lite II (2013 model with edge guard) Pickleball Now Pickleball Now Pickleball Now PickleballPaddlesPlus PicklePaddles Plus PicklePro POP POP POP POP POP ProLite Sports ProLite Sports ProLite Sports ProLite Sports ProLite Sports ProLite Sports ProLite Sports ProLite Sports RiverStyks RiverStyks RiverStyks Selkirk Selkirk Selkirk Third Shot Drop Third Shot Drop Competition XL Carbon XL Lite Hyper Lite Nexus Carbon Classic 4.0 Touch 5.0 Touch 7.5 Dual Touch E -glass /HC Graphite Tear Honeycomb Aero -D Graphite Blaster 2 Alloy Classic Graphite Blaster Impact Intercept 1 Series Magnum Composite Magnum Graphite (Used) Kicking Horse Kicking Horse 2.0 Tigris 200AL 200AXL Red Zone Paddles banned for use in Sun City Grand. DO NOT BUY THESE PADDLES. S2 Prime X4 Fiberflex Chaos TSD -CA Chaos TSD -CB Grand Pickleball Club Paddle Sound Study Sort by Manufacturer and Model - October 8, 2022 Brand Model Usage Al 1N Sports Hyperfeather Al 1N Sports Hyperfeather R Al 1N Sports Hyperfeather SE Aero Paddles Swift Aero Paddles Swift 2.0 Amazin' Aces AA Pro Series Cambria Amazin' Aces Quality Sporting Goods Graphite Amazin' Aces Signature Armour Pickleball Axiom Compressed Core Technology Armour Pickleball Axis Compressed Core Technology Armour Pickleball Helio Armour Pickleball Helio Carbon Graphite Armour Pickleball Helio X2 Armour Pickleball Invigor Armour Pickleball Invigor 8 Athlete Ratings Play Hard Darin's Pickleball Paddle Pro Shop Diaden Icon Diaden Riptide Dink Sports Black and Blue Eastport Pickleball Champion Engage Pickleball Elite Pro Engage Pickleball Encore Engage Pickleball Encore Blade Engage Pickleball Encore Lite Engage Pickleball Encore Pro Engage Pickleball Encore X Series Engage Pickleball Guardian Engage Pickleball Guardian II Engage Pickleball Mystic Engage Pickleball Pulse Engage Pickleball Spartan Engage Pickleball Tear Drop Engage Pickleball Ultimate Engage Pickleball Ultimate Engage Pickleball Ultra Franklin Pickleball Ben Jones Franklin Pickleball Ben Jones 16mm Franklin Pickleball Centre Franklin Pickleball X1000 Gamma Sports Compass Gamma Sports Compass LH Gamma Sports Jester Gamma Sports Legend Gamma Sports Needle Gamma Sports Proton Gamma Sports Razor Gamma Sports Shard Gamma Sports Twister Gear Box CP7 Gear Box CX11 E Control Gear Box CX11 E Power Gear Box CX11 Q Control Gear Box CX11 Q Power Gear Box CX14E Gear Box CX14H Gear Box GH7 Gearbox GX5 Control Gearbox GX5 Power Gearbox GX6 Control Gearbox GX6 Power GROVN The Gripper-G GROVN The Launch-C GROVN The Launch-G GROVN The Rounder-G Head Extreme Elite Head Extreme Lite Head Margaritaville Changes Head Margaritaville FINS Head Margaritaville It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere Head Margaritaville Washed in the Ocean Head Radical Tour L Head Radical XL Head Extreme Pro Head Extreme Pro L Head Extreme Tour Head Radical Elite Head Radical Pro Head Radical Tour JP WinLook Graphite Honeycomb (Speedy) Laser Sport Products 1402 (Wood) Laser Sport Products 1403 (Wood) Laser Sport Products 1404 (Wood) Manta Cylon Manta Extreme Manta Matrix Manta Tornado F5 Edgeless (GGG) Poly Core Monarch Dragon Slayer Monarch Mercenary Graphite Nexxed Pickleball Pro Nexxed Pickleball Victor Nexxed Pickleball X1 Nexxed Pickleball X2 Onix Sports Attitude Onix Sports Evoke Graphite Onix Sports Evoke Oval Onix Sports Evoke Premier Onix Sports Evoke Premier Light Onix Sports Evoke Pro Onix Sports Evoke Square Onix Sports Graphite Phantom Widebody Onix Sports Graphite Zen Onix Sports Outbreak Onix Sports React Onix Sports Signature Onix Sports Summit Onix Sports Voyager Onix Sports Voyager Pro Onix Sports Wood Onix Sports Z5 Widebody Graphite Onix Sports/S-Type Core 2 Graphite Onix Sports/S-Type Slammer Graphite Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD -CC Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD -CD Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD -CF Third Shot Drop Chaos TSD -CG Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KA Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KC Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KD Third Shot Drop Kratos TSD KF Viking Re -Ignite Viking Re -Ignite Lite Viking Synergy WhipperSnapper Light WhipperSnapper Medium Weight (2 weeks old) WhipperSnapper Medium Weight (Used - Detuned) WhipperSnapper New model 2014 WhipperSnapper PT WhipperSnapper X Heavy XX Heavy WhipperSnapper Wilson BLX Wilson BLX Wilson Energy Wilson XCEL ZZT Classic Thin (lite) EVO Classic ZZT TO: PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 5.1 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission December 13, 2023 SUBJECT: Consider adoption of Resolution No. 01-2023, Adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Approving the addition of Six New Pickleball Courts with Associated Seating at Osage Station Park BACKGROUND The Town of Danville adopted its Parks, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan Update (Plan) in 2017. The Plan "establishes a long-range vision and course of action for creating and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks, recreation and arts facilities, services and programs." The Plan contains several overall recommendations for ways of keeping the Town's park system as relevant as possible. One recommendation is to "Increase the multi -functionality and recreation value of existing parks and facilities through capital improvements that incorporate new recreation facilities and features." A second recommendation is to "Support emerging recreation activities to address trends and add variety to the recreation options in Danville." The plan also specifically "identifies outdoor recreation facilities to consider for Danville's parks system to augment and diversify the existing inventory of sports fields, courts, and playgrounds." Examples identified included a skatepark, disc golf, pickleball, outdoor fitness area, and a destination play area (universally accessible)." The Plan contains some specific recommendations regarding Osage Station Park, including investigating "the possibility of installing a skate park where bocce courts were planned in the park's 30 -year Master Plan." In 2020, the Town Council concluded that a skate park should be located at Diablo Vista Park rather than Osage. The Town's Osage Station Park Master Plan (prepared in 2011) envisioned several possible new uses for the area of the park near the tennis courts. The options identified ranged from the addition of more tennis courts to adding bocce courts to adding a snack shack/community room. As of today, none of those improvements have been added, with bocce being switched fully to Sycamore Valley Park. The Plan includes several strategic recommendations for providing inclusive recreational opportunities for users of all ages and supporting emerging recreation activities to A 'FP A ('i7AAr,XTry, r address trends and increase the variety of recreational opportunities available to the community. Pickleball is an example of one such activity. Pickleball was a recommendation brought through the Plan development based on community input and was determined to be a priority recommendation for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission (Commission). Pickleball_ programming was introduced in Danville through several pop-up events presented by the Recreation, Arts, and Community Services staff at a variety of park locations in the Town. Events were held indoors at the Los Cerros Gym, outdoors at the basketball courts at Danville South and Sycamore Valley Parks, and at the tennis courts at both Osage Station and Diablo Vista Parks. The goal was to introduce the sport and show the versatility of locations where it can be played. At the January 13, 2021, Commission meeting, Town staff provided a report that included information regarding tennis court reservation usage in the Town and the feasibility of options for adding outdoor pickleball courts in Danville. After discussing tennis court usage and pickleball options and hearing public comments, the Commission recommended that staff move forward with Option 2 at Osage Station Park by converting one tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts by the spring or summer of 2021. They also recommended Option 1 as a backup if timing and funding were not lining up to be executed in a timely fashion (Attachment A). Although four courts were approved, two were ultimately added due to insufficient space to accommodate more within the current court configuration. At its February 10, 2021, meeting, the Commission provided its final approval to move forward with the conversion project, which was completed in April 2021 (Attachment B). This resulted in the Town's first two pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. As expected, the courts have proven to be extremely popular, particularly during the morning hours, and there appears to be more than enough demand to warrant adding additional courts. In June 2022, based on the apparent demand for additional pickleball courts, the Town Council approved the 2022/2023 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, which included CIP Project B-637 Pickleball Courts, to expand the number of courts available at Town parks. The funding is not tied to a particular location within the Town. At its July 13, 2022, meeting, the Commission, based on its priority recommendation of additional pickleball courts and the substantial use of the two courts at Osage Station Park, received and reviewed a preliminary site analysis to determine where adding courts may be feasible (Attachment C). After a discussion of the site analysis, the Commission determined Osage Station Park to be the optimal location for additional courts. The recommendation was to potentially increase the number of pickleball courts from two to up to 14 courts and the addition of another tennis court to bring the total number back to four tennis courts. At its November 9 and November 30, 2022, meetings, the Commission conducted public hearings to review options for additional courts at Osage Station Park, including increasing the number of pickleball courts to up to eight courts, the number of tennis courts, hours of use, precise siting within the park, seating options, etc. (Attachment D) The Commission received extensive public input on the proposal directly from residents, both in favor of and in opposition to the addition of courts. The Commission unanimously directed staff to conduct an Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), to include an acoustical consultant, which would look at the potential environmental impacts of creating a project with a maximum of eight pickleball courts and up to four tennis courts, along with seating area. DISCUSSION Given the Commissions direction provided at the November 2022 meetings, the Town has been working through completing the CEQA process to study the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The two prime areas of study were noise and traffic/parking. Each is addressed here. Noise In order to address noise/acoustics, the Town selected Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). Rincon had previously prepared CEQA work for proposed pickleball courts in Martinez. The study prepared by Rincon assumed a total of eight pickleball courts plus four tennis courts and looked at impacts on surrounding residences (Attachment E). To categorize ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project, noise reading measurements were taken at the following five locations surrounding the current courts: • At the end of the parking lot to capture noise generated from surrounding park activity • Near the parking lot to capture noise levels at the backyard of 882 Orange Blossom Way • Approximately 50 feet east of the existing pickleball courts while games were underway • At the southern boundary of Osage Station Park to capture noise levels at the backyard of 535 El Capitan Drive • Near the west end of the basketball courts at Charlotte Wood Middle School As explained in the study, assuming all pickleball and tennis courts were in use at the same time, the highest noise level at the closest residence would be below the Town's General Plan standards. On this basis, the Negative Declaration concludes that noise from the project would not create a significant environmental impact, and no mitigation is required. Traffic and Parking The Town retained Kimley Horn and Associates (KHA) to study the potential traffic and parking impacts of the project through a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (Attachment E). While the TIA includes an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts (which is the required standard under CEQA), the primary focus is on roadway capacity analysis for the four roadway segments shown below, as well as a parking occupancy and demand analysis to determine the proposed project's effects. The TIA looked at the impacts of up to a total of eight pickleball courts and the three existing tennis courts. Roadway segments analyzed were: • Orange Blossom Way (south of Osage Station Park, south parking lot entry) • Orange Blossom Way (north of Osage Station Park, south parking lot entry) • Osage Station Park Driveway (east of Orange Blossom Way) • El Capitan Drive (west of Orange Blossom Way) For purposes of both traffic and parking analysis, any such study will rely on parking and trip generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). As discussed during the Commission hearings in November 2022, the ITE has not yet developed trip and parking generation rates for pickleball, so the default is to use those for tennis courts. However, in an effort to be conservative and to recognize the concerns raised by members of the public, KHA was instructed to adjust the ITE tennis court rates by a factor of 1.5, in other words, a 50% increase. For both parking and traffic, the projected increased demand is added to measured peak usage numbers to determine potential impacts. The KHA study concludes that with respect to parking, there is adequate parking available to accommodate the proposed project. For traffic, even with the additional trips generated, the overall traffic is within the identified capacity for all roadway segments. It should be noted that the TIA only studied three tennis courts to go along with either six or eight pickleball courts. Town staff followed up to determine whether the TIA's conclusions would be the same with four tennis courts. The answer is that there would still be adequate parking, but for traffic, there would be a slight exceedance of the vehicle trips per day on the segment of Orange Blossom between the south parking lot and El Capitan during school pick-up and drop-off periods. In order to avoid this, the project would need to be limited to eight pickleball and three tennis courts or six pickleball and four tennis courts. Conclusions of the CEQA Process As shown through these studies and the rest of the items reviewed in the Initial Study, the conclusion is that the addition of six pickleball courts would not create any significant environmental impacts and that no environmental mitigation is necessary. On that basis, it is recommended that the Commission adopt the draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance based on the findings contained in the attached resolution (Attachment F). Consideration of Conditions of Approval Although the CEQA process revealed no significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation, the Commission may wish to add conditions to the project to address concerns raised by neighbors and/ or to ensure compatibility with other activities in the park. Some potential conditions are included in the draft resolution, but the Commission can modify those or add others. Potential conditions of approval include: Limiting hours of use. During the November 2022 meetings, it was proposed that hours could be limited from 8:00 am until dusk, seven days per week. Currently, play is allowed for the two courts in use starting at 7:30 am on weekdays, when Town maintenance activities begin, and 8:00 am on weekends, when other sports activities begin. Priority of use. Town -run leagues, classes, and camps would have first priority for the use of the courts. The courts would be open for drop-in community use. No commercial use, league play, or tournaments other than those offered by the Town's Recreation, Arts, and Community Services Department will be allowed. All of these would limit large gatherings, as the court's intent is to primarily serve residents and provide Town -run classes for those wishing to learn the game. Addition of sound barriers. While not necessary for CEQA purposes, sound barriers have been shown to reduce further noise generated by the activity. The number of courts. Reduce the maximum number of pickleball/tennis courts. Consistent with the Commission's direction, all of the environmental analysis studied a total of eight pickleball and four tennis courts. During the November 2022 meetings, the Commission discussed potentially reducing the number of courts. NEXT STEPS As indicated below in the Recommendation, Town staff is recommending that the Conunission adopt the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approving one of the project options of adding up to six new pickleball courts, as shown in Attachment D. The resolution should reflect any conditions of approval that the Commission would like to add to the project. If approved by the Commission, the project and the Negative Declaration could be appealed to the Town Council for their consideration. If there is no appeal or the Council also approves the project, staff would move forward into a design phase. Timing of design and construction would need to be coordinated with all of the other capital improvements currently in process for the Town. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funding has been appropriated for pickleball expansion as part of the 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 01-2023, Adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Approving the Addition of Six New Pickleball Courts with Associated Seating at Osage Station Park. Prepared and Reviewed by: Henry Perezalonso Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Attachments: A - January 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions B - February 2021 Staff Report and Summary of Actions C - July 2022 Staff Report and Summary of Actions D - November 2022 Staff Report and Summary of Actions E - Negative Declaration and Supporting Studies F - Resolution DocuSign Envelope ID: 9478A5EA-E67D-4A24-97CC-C4F302BE3456 This is intended as a summary of actions only. Persons interested in greater detail may view the meeting video at danville.ca.gov/129/Meetings-Agendas-Minutes. Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Regular Meeting Summary of Actions December 13, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was called to order by Chair Mesic at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street, Danville. CA. Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Randall Diamond, Commissioner Kevin Donovan, Commissioner Jane Joyce, Commissioner Joe Lindsey, Commissioner Carol Mascali, Commissioner Charles Neary, Vice Chair Jenna Mesic, Chair Excused: Adam Falcon, Commissioner; Absent: Addison Brown, Youth Representative 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA There were no changes to the Order of the Agenda. 3. "FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWN" William Stone expressed concern regarding flood mitigation at Osage Station Park. He referenced documents provided to the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission and encouraged the Town to investigate the flood area. Phil Johnson expressed concern of the Osage Station Park flood zone and encouraged the Town to review the flood zone area. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9478A5EA-E67D-4A24-97CC-C4F302BE3456 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Regular Meeting Summary of Actions December 13, 2023 One written comment was received in advance of the meeting and forwarded to the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission for review. William Stone 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Consider approval of the Meeting Summary of the September 13, 2023, Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission and Arts Advisory Board joint special meeting MOTION BY CHAIR JOYCE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MASCALI, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION CARRIED 7-0-1-1; COMMISSIONER FALCON EXCUSED; COMMISSIONER YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE BROWN ABSENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORTS 5.1 Consider adoption of Resolution No. 01-2023, Adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Approving the Addition of Six New Pickleball Courts with Associated Seating at Osage Station Park Director Henry Perezalonso presented a PowerPoint presentation discussing the staff report and the next steps. City Attorney Rob Ewing, Transportation Manager Andy Dillard, and Rincon Consultant Josh Garmin were available for questions. Chair Mesic opened the item for Commissioners questions. Chair Mesic opened the item to public comment. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park: Bee Kilgore Brad Falk Toby Foster Kim Moore Stuart Proctor Wesley Soo Hoo Ishai Crane Tim Collins Andrea Joseph Nickles Ron Fong Kathy Vickrey DocuSign Envelope ID: 9478A5EA-E67D-4A24-97CC-C4F302BE3456 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission December 13, 2023 Page 3 The following individuals turned in speaker cards, did not wish to speak and are in support of the proposed addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Don Means Susan Lee Gerald Sing Teri Banks Jean SooHoo Dave Bonnie Julie Bonnie Gary Caires Jimmy Custer Lory Gandmen Pamela Low Frank Danek June Chang Jill Shinkle Mark Nollsch Rozlyn Franklin John Weseloa Karen Means Jenise Falk Nancy Perry Barbara Fong Sharon Caires Dawn Tsai Lisa Regal Irene Strokon The following individuals spoke in opposition pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. William Stone Mandi Newton Harriet Neely Rich Ochoa Lorinda Ochoa Chuck Preas Camilo Pereira Anthony Romanelli to the proposed addition of John Somers Jennifer Jo Wiseman Francie Roberts Amanda Clooser Michelle Maddaus Scott Galen Phil Johnson The following individuals turned in speaker cards, did not wish to speak and are in opposition to the proposed addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Mark Hopper Catherine Hopper Leeann Brown Julia Philbert Diane Preas Thomas Philbert Janice Stordahl Mark and Mary Seller Evan Hendry Olivier Larue Joyce Michalczylt DocuSign Envelope ID: 9478A5EA=E67D-4A24-97CC-C4F302BE3456 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Regular Meeting Summary of Actions December 13, 2023 Forty-eight written comments were received in advance of the meeting and forwarded to the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission for review: Joanne Jouris Terry Tow Calvin Wong Cecillia Kohl Teresa Jacobs TJ Dupont Ross Miller Irina Chapman Brad Falk Beth Topor Kristi English Amit Raghavan Jenise Falk Brad Lowe Terry Tringali Jeremy Weisshar Mark Lowe Mark and Cheryl Allan Lindsay Mazotti Leann Brown Anthony Romanelli Laura Reimers Traci Krueger Chris Coles Adrienne Cummings Carl Taibl Wesley and Jean SooHoo Wendy Lueth Hamid Fatehi Ron and Barb Fong Cythnia Keefer Nancy Perry Jane Raquel Ron and Barb Fong Juliana Wong Yurika Toyofuku Barbara Yeh Amy Gerace Law Offices of Stuart Flashman Jinene Ting John Somers June Chang Jennifer Jo Wiseman Catherine Hopper Mandi Newton Kolisa Larue Carol Manuel Kim Van Hoesen Chair Mesic closed the item for public comment. Chair Mesic opened the item for Commissioner comments. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DIAMOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LINDSEY TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NO. 01-2023, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARARION OF ENVIRONEMNETAL SIGNIFICANCE AND APPROVING THE ADDITION OF SIX NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS WITH ASSOCIATED SEATING AND ADDITION OF SOUND MITIGATION MEASURES DocuSign Envelope ID: 9478A5EA-E67D-4A24-97CC-C4F302BE3456 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission Regular Meeting Summary of Actions December 13, 2023 MOTION CARRIED 5-2-1-1; COMMISSIONER DONOVAN AND COMMISSIONER MASCALI OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER FALCON EXCUSED; COMMISSIONER YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE BROWN ABSENT 6. COMMUNICATION 6.1 Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director's Report Director Henry Perezalonso provided the Commissioners with updates on program events and activities for the month. Mr. Perezalonso also reminded the Town will be on Furlough from December 25 to January 1, 2024. 7. COMMISSIONER REPORTS The Commissioners provided updates on activities and events in Danville. 8. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting of the Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. r—DocuSigned by: fku4iti1 etni5c.Lbvi,s0 "-UULU/J7UE(,hU4y4... Henry Perezalonso, Director Recreation, Arts and Community Services ,--- D o c u S igg nn edby: "- b h 4SLAttJU424J&... Gail Massagli, Administrative Assistant Recreation, Arts and Community Services 5 Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life' DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE NAME OF PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: MITIGATION MEASURES: DETERMINATION: Town of Danville Pickleball Court Development Osage Station Park 876 Orange Blossom Way Danville, CA 94526 The Town is proposing to add up to six new pickleball courts at Osage Park where two pickleball and three tennis courts already exist. Town of Danville Planning Division 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Contact: Riley Anderson -Barrett, Associate Planner randersonbarrett@danville.ca. gov (925) 314-3314 Studies have been conducted to review potential impacts to noise and transportation and have determined that no significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. Based upon the provided studies, no mitigation measures were identified and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be associated with the subject project. 500 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Administration Building Engineering & Planning (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 Transportation (925) 314-3310 Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3410 (925) 314-3400 Attachment E November 20, 2023 Page 2 The Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Department, Town of Danville. Copies of the Initial Study may be obtained at the Town offices located at 500 La Gonda Way, Danville, California 94526 or on our website at https://danvilletowntalks.org/pickle- ball. ATTEST: A<L' Riley Anderson -Barrett Associate Planner 'Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life" NOTICE OF A PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Project Title: Project Location/APN: Project Description: Applicant/Owner: Lead Agency: Town of Danville Pickleball Court Development 876 Orange Blossom Way / 207-120-002 The Town is proposing to add up to six new pickleball courts at Osage Station Park where two courts currently exist. Town of Danville Recreation, Arts & Community Services 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Contact: Henry Perezalonso, Director of Recreation, Arts and Community Services HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov (925) 314-3354 Town of Danville Planning Division 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Contact: Riley Anderson -Barrett, Associate Planner randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov (925) 314-3314 Copies of Initial Study Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study of and Negative Environmental Significance that was prepared for the project are Declaration: available at the Town of Danville Town Offices located at 500 La Gonda Way. Review Period: November 21, 2023 to December 13, 2023 Public Hearing: Wednesday, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. at the Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street 500 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400 DANWLLE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING, A PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Danville Parks, Recreation & Arts Commission Meeting Wednesday, December 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. 1 Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street Project: Location: Proposed Addition of Pickleball Courts Osage Station Park Description: The Town previously converted one tennis court at Osage Station Park into two pickleball courts. At their July 13, 2022, meeting, the Commission identified Osage Station Park as the location to potentially add additional pickleball courts. At their November 9, 2022, meeting, the Commission discussed adding up to six additional pickleball courts, resulting in a total of eight courts. Further discussion of adding new courts will take place at the December 13, 2023, meeting. Environmental Review: The project has been found to have no significant environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, a Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for this project. Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Significance that were prepared for the project are available at the Town of Danville Town Offices located at 500 La Gonda Way and on the Town Talks website which may be accessed by scanning the QR code below. The review period for a proposed Negative Declaration shall not be less than 20 days. Staff Contact: Henry Perezalonso, Director of Recreation, Arts and Community Services Phone: (925) 314-3454 Email: HPerezalonso@danville.ca.gov All interested persons are encouraged to attend and be heard at the scheduled public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, at the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front Street, Danville, CA. NOTE: If you challenge the Town's decision on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior, to the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Town of Danville will provide special assistance for disabled citizens. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (925) 314-3388. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 128CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and. Initial Study of Environmental Significance that were prepared for the project are available at the Town of Danville Town Offices located at 500 La Gonda Way or on our Town Talks website which may be accessed by scanning the QR code below. 0 O CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act Town of Danville Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Osage Park Pickleball Courts 2. Lead agency name and address: Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 3. Contact person and phone number: Riley Anderson -Barrett, (925) 314-3314 4. Project location: Osage Station Park 876 Orange Blossom Way Danville, CA 94526 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 6. Zoning: 7. General Plan designation: A-2; General Agricultural District Open Space; Parks and Recreation 8. Description of project: The Town is proposing to add up to six pickleball courts at Osage Park where two pickle ball and three tennis courts already exist. Surrounding land uses and setting: Single-family residences are located to the 9. south and west and additional park area to the north and east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District • Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District • Contra Costa County Flood Control District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Agriculture / Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hydrology / ❑ Land Use / Water Quality Planning .1( Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Recreation 17Transportation ❑ Utilities / Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Wildfire ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable 2 standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. • 11/20/2023 Signature Date Riley Anderson -Barrett Printed Name Issues: I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect 011 a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Potentially Significant Impact 3 Town of Danville For Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x ❑ ❑ Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified Potentially Significant Impact 5 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: 6 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Impact ❑ 7 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant with Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact Impact ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of 8 ❑ ❑ x reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency Potentially Significant Impact 9 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ x ❑ Potentially Significant Impact response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b) Substantially decrease groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche 10 ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant with Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact Impact 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ x c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact 12 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant with Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact Impact 13 ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ x XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact 14 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water Potentially Significant Impact 15 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact x No Impact sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact 16 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact EXPLANATIONS: I. AESTHETICS: would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The subject project is not within a Town designated scenic hillside or major ridgeline and there are no scenic vistas on-site or surrounding the project area. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The site is not within view of a state scenic highway. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?? Less than Significant Impact. The project would allow the development of up to six new pickleball courts in an area of Osage Park which currently contains two pickleball courts and three tennis courts. The six additional courts will not degrade the visual character of the park or the surrounding neighborhood or conflict with zoning requirements. The proposed use is consistent with the existing use and surrounding residential properties. General Plan and zoning designation allow for recreational use. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The project may result in additional light sources typical of a recreational area with the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods being less than significant. More substantial lighting, such as sports filed lighting, is not allowed at Osage park. A standard condition of approval for such a development would require exterior lighting to be shielded downward to avoid glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The parcel is not classified as prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site. The site has a land use of Open Space, Parks and Recreation and a zoning designation of General Agricultural District. It is not being used for agricultural uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract. 17 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site and will not result in the rezoning of forest land. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The site is zoned for agricultural use and currently contains a park with recreational fields and courts. The proposed development would not result in the conversion of any farmland to a non-agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site. The proposed project would not increase regional population growth or cause changes in vehicular traffic that would affect the implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site, and recreational uses are anticipated. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within a park, where sensitive receptors may be located. Pollutant levels would temporarily be increased due to equipment associated with the construction. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site, and recreational use is anticipated. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development is the expansion of an existing recreational area: This type of development will not result in the creation of objectionable odors which are not typical for the area. 18 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The property consists of an existing park. No trees are proposed for removal. The project is not projected to impact special -status species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impacts. No riparian or other sensitive communities have been identified on-site. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impacts. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. There are no protected wetlands located on the property. All stormwater/ surface runoff should be directed into the Town's storm drain system. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. All stormwater/surface runoff should be directed into the Town's storm drain system. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impacts. No trees are proposed for removal as part of construction of the project. The project would develop pickleball courts within an existing park. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan associated with this property. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: 19 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. The site and existing structures on site do not meet criteria as a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. There has been no identification of the existence, or probable likelihood, of an archaeological resource on this site. Standard Conditions of Approval require that, in the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during any construction or pre -construction activities on the site, all land alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted, the Town Planning Division notified, and a professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation measures if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading or site development, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the applicant shall notify the county coroner and comply with all state law requirements, including Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code section 5097.98, to ensure proper disposition of the human remains or suspected human remains, including those identified to be Native American remains. VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would result in short- term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. Energy use would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavyduty equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Project construction would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). CalGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that apply to construction to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Project construction would not involve wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Project operation would result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips, landscaping equipment, and electricity to 20 power court lights. Project energy consumed would represent a negligible change compared to existing conditions and would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impacts. Energy use during project construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary and construction equipment used would be typical of other construction projects in the region. Project construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and any impacts would be less than significant. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The site is not located near active faults. Given the project's requirement to comply with California Building Code related to seismic activity, this impact is considered less than significant requirement to comply with California Building Code related to seismic activity, this impact is considered less than significant. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?.Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a State of California Liquefaction Zone. The project would not substantially alter existing hazards related to seismic events. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Given the project's requirement to comply with California Building Code related to seismic activity, this impact is considered less than significant. iv) Landslides? No Impact. No evidence of landslide characteristics have been observed on the site or in the area in the past. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. There is potential for some soil erosion caused by both wind and water during the construction phase of the project. Compliance with standard Town practices regarding erosion prevention makes this impact less than significant. 21 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The site is nearly flat and not located within or near a State of California Liquefaction Zone or Earthquake Fault Zone. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. There will be no risk of collapse of unstable structures because the project is primarily hardscaping and does not propose habitable structures. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where- sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. There is no impact because the project would not include the use or installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no anticipated paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the property. In the event that an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of project construction, it is the responsibility of any worker who observes fossils within the project site to stop work within 100 feet of the find and notify a qualified professional paleontologist who shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance and if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work in the area of the discovery will resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given by the Town to resume construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring shall be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository. The paleontologist shall submit a report to the Town to document compliance within 30 days of its completion. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would allow the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within an existing park located in a residential neighborhood. The new courts may cause an increase in visitation which will not substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, greenhouse gas levels would temporarily be increased due to equipment associated with the construction. The project would use existing roads, making it consistent with the Town of Danville's 2030 General Plan Policy 34.02. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. The 22 project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within a park within a residential area. The proposed project involves the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within a park where pickleball and tennis courts already exist. Hazardous materials which are not consistent with typical recreational and residential areas are not expected to be associated with this development. Project construction may temporarily increase the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, including diesel fuel, oil, solvents, and other similar construction -related hazardous materials which will be subject to all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation Act, California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The proposed project is within a park within a residential area. The proposed project involves the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within a park where pickleball and tennis courts already exist. Hazardous materials which are not consistent with typical recreational and residential areas are not expected to be associated with this development. Ongoing and proposed uses at the park would not involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within a park in a residential neighborhood. Hazardous materials which are not consistent with typical recreational and residential areas are not expected to be associated with this development. The proposed project is located directly west of Charlotte Wood Middle School. No evidence of existing underground storage tanks was observed. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. This site is not known to be included on any list of hazardous materials sites. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working n the project area? No Impact. The subject site is not within an airport zone or part of any airport plan. 23 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. There is not a specific emergency response plan for this area. The project will meet all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed project is located within a park within a residential area. The project will meet all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District including fire abatement measures. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. Compliance with the Town's stormwater run-off requirements will ensure no water quality standards are violated. The integrated management practices (IMPs) proposed for the treatment areas will be consistent with the recommendations of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. The proposed project will conform to the Town's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-06) and all applicable construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the site. A project Operations Maintenance Plan and Agreement will also be developed and recorded for this site. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project would be served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District for water and no new wells would be created. The project would introduce new impervious surfaces for a new pickleball court. This would impede groundwater recharge within the footprint of impervious surfaces. Considering the lack of water use by the project, the project's small footprint, and that surrounding pervious areas would allow water to infiltrate into the soil, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, and these impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially increase erosion or siltation. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which 24 would result in flooding on- or offsite; Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially inLIeaae surface runoff and flooding. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially increase surface runoff and flooding. The additional run-off will not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities. The project will be required to comply with all stormwater quality requirements. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce new impervious surfaces that will not substantially alter flood flows. The additional run-off will not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities. The project will be required to comply with all stormwater quality requirements. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The site is not near any large body of water, so the risk of damage due to a seiche, tsunami or mudslide is very low. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact. No structures will be built within the 100 -year flood plain, as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There are no dams or levees in the vicinity of the site. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project? a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project is located within an existing park in a residential neighborhood, consistent with existing surrounding developments. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project is located within an existing park in a residential neighborhood, consistent with existing surrounding developments. The proposed project complies with existing general plan zoning and ordinances. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no known mineral 25 resources on this site. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources on the site. XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within an existing park within a residential development. The park currently hosts two pickleball courts and three tennis courts. Noise levels would temporarily be increased due to noise associated with the construction of the courts. The noise impact will be less than significant given required standard conditions of approval which define and limit hours of construction. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding potential noise impacts generated by the impact of the pickleball against the face of the pickleball. In order to study this potential impact, a noise study was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. The study concluded that "the results of the modeling indicate that project operational recreational noise levels for all eight pickleball courts operating simultaneously would result in a noise level of up to 53 L dn at the closest residential property line to the south and up to 55 an at the closest residential property line to the west. This would be below the threshold of 60 dn per the Town of Danville General Plan Policy 27.09. Therefore, project operational noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. d) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibrations and noise levels would temporarily be increased due to the construction of the project but would not reach significant levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The subject site is not located within an area including an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension 26 of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not propose any new homes. No population growth influenced by the additional courts is anticipated. The project was anticipated as part of the Town's 2030 General Plan. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The development will not displace any housing in the area. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? Less than Significant Impact. The project will be served by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, as indicated in correspondence with the District. The project will be designed to meet all of the requirements of the District. ii) Police Protection? Less than Significant Impact. The project will be served by the Danville Police Department, which is on contract from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. iii) Schools? Less than Significant Impact. No new residences are proposed. It is unlikely that the new courts will encourage population increase to impact school attendance within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. iv) Parks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed pickleball courts may have an increase in park facility use. v) Other Public Facilities? Less than Significant. No other public facilities have been identified in which this project would result in a significant adverse negative impact. XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed pickleball courts may cause an increase in the use of Osage Park but will not be significant enough to cause substantial physical deterioration. There are two existing pickleball courts and three tennis courts which have not indicated that additional courts will accelerate deterioration. 27 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The project will expand the existing pickleball area with the addition of up to six new courts but will not expand outside of Osage Station Park's boundaries. The construction will not have a significant adverse physical effect on the environment. XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The area's streets, land use planning and zoning were planned and in place to accommodate recreational uses on this site. Traffic will increase by the rate associated with six new pickleball courts. In order to study the potential traffic and parking impacts related to the six additional pickleball courts, a Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. The study concluded that "the available parking supply for all three parking lots of 318 parking spaces is sufficient to meet the peak parking demands for Scenario #1 and #2 for a typical weekday and Saturday. The study also found that the project "would result in volumes less than the capacity threshold for all segments under Scenarios #1 and #2. Therefore, the project would not generate any deficiencies on the nearby roadway segments for both scenarios and any potential impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate criteria to evaluate a project's transportation impacts. The Transportation Division conducted a traffic study which indicated that any additional traffic due to the addition of six new pickleball courts will be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project does not propose any alterations or additions to transportation corridors, will meet all of the Town's design standards, and is not proposing any potentially hazardous design features. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project is an addition to existing parks facilities and will have no impact on emergency access. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: 28 a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact. Osage Station Park is not recorded as a cultural resource. In the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during any construction or pre construction activities on the site, all land alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted, the Town Planning Division notified, and a professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. ii) ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less than Significant Impact. Osage Station Park is not recorded as a cultural resource. In the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during any construction or pre construction activities on the site, all land alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted, the Town Planning Division notified, and a professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or 29 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The development is within the Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District boundaries and will be served by the District. The project would include renovations to a public park, which would not include the construction of buildings or uses that would require relocation, new, or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication services. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?? Less than Significant Impact. The project is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Construction would only require minimal amounts of water and will not cause for an increase in water use during the ongoing operation and maintenance of the new courts. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The development is within the Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District boundaries, and will be served by the District. Long-term project operation would not generate substantial solid waste beyond what is already generated by park users but may result in minimal additional wastewater attributed to people using the park's public restrooms. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction gals? Less than Significant Impact. The area's solid waste provider will continue to serve the project location. Project construction would generate waste, resulting in the need for solid waste disposal. Long-term project operation would not generate substantial solid waste beyond what is already generated by park users but may result in minimal additional wastewater attributed to people using the park's public restrooms. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. The development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes regarding solid waste. XX. WILDFIRE: Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located within any identified very high fire severity zones and will not impact emergency plans. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the 30 uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The project site is not located within any identified very high fire severity zones and does not have a sloping landscape or prevailing winds. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project does not propose the addition of any infrastructure which may exacerbate fire risks. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The project site is primarily flat and will not expose people to flooding, landslides due to run off and drainage changes. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that the project will degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a wildlife species, or reduce the range of a rare or endangered plant or aminal. The project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project has no potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would include improvements to an existing park. 31 September 8, 2023 Project No. 23-14340 Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville (925) 314-3454 Via email: hperezalonso@danville.ca.gov Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510 834 4455 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com Subject: Noise Study for the Osage Park Pickleball Project, Danville, California Dear Mr. Perezalonso: This technical letter report summarizes the results for the Osage Park pickleball noise study for the proposed project located at Osage Park in the Town of Danville. The noise study addresses potential noise impacts from implementation of the proposed project on nearby residences. This report was prepared by Josh Carman, INCE-USA. Mr. Carman is a Noise Director with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and has over 20 years of experience in the field of acoustics and environmental noise and has participated in the environmental review and monitoring process for a wide variety of projects in California, Washington, Nevada, and New York. Mr. Carman prepares noise and vibration assessments for environmental impact studies and technical studies in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using federal, state, and local guidelines and methodology. Mr. Carman is a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Project Understanding The project would involve expansion of the existing pickleball courts, from two to up to eight courts, along with bench seating near the courts based on the November 9, 2022, Town staff report. Park operational hours of dawn to dusk seven days a week would remain. For the purposes of this analysis and based on information from the Town, the pickleball courts operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends depending on the season. The closest residences are immediately south of the project site on El Capitan Drive and additional residences are located to the west on Orange Blossom Way. Noise Overview Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent Environmental S c i e n t i s t s Planners E n gine e r s Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease. Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not "sound twice as loud" as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud. Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this "shielding" depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line -of sight -will provide at least 5 dBA reduction in noise level at the receiver. The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A -weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Typically, Leq IS summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day as it can disrupt sleep. Regulatory Framework Town of Danville General Plan The Town of Danville General Plan contains land use compatibility categories for community noise exposure, noise contour maps, and policies related to noise. The following goal and policy are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 27 Protect existing and future residents of Danville from hazards and nuisance associated with excessive levels of noise by maintaining or reducing noise intrusion levels in all areas of the Town to acceptable levels. Policy 27.09 Generally maintain exterior noise levels below 60 Ldn in areas where outdoor use is a major consideration, such as in residential backyards. Where the Town determines that this level cannot be achieved after reasonable mitigation has Page 2 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study been applied, higher standards may be permitted at the discretion of the Town Council. In such cases, indoor noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Town of Danville Municipal Code The Town of Danville Municipal Code does not have any exterior noise standards. However, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make a loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of a neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. Ambient Noise Measurements To characterize ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project, five short-term, 15 -minute noise level measurements were conducted on Saturday, July 8, 2023 and repeated on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. Short-term noise measurement results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Short-term noise measurement (ST) -1 was conducted at the north end of the parking lot to capture noise generated from surrounding park activity. ST -2 was conducted near the parking lot to capture noise levels at the backyard of 882 Orange Blossom Way. ST -3 was conducted approximately 50 feet east of the existing pickleball courts while two games were underway on both monitoring days. ST -4 was conducted at the southern boundary of Osage Park to capture noise levels at the backyard of 535 El Capitan Drive. ST -5 was conducted near the west end of the basketball courts at Charlotte Wood Middle School. The sound level meter was equipped with a windscreen during measurements. The sound level meter used for noise monitoring (Extech 407780A) satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for Type 2 instrumentation. The sound level meter was set to "slow" response and "A" • weighting (dBA). The meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring period. All measurements were at least five feet above the ground and away from reflective surfaces. Table 1 summarizes the results of the noise measurements on a typical weekend day and Table 2 summarizes the noise measurements taken during the week. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the short-term noise measurements taken near the existing pickleball courts. Page 3 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Table 1 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results - Saturday, July 8, 2023 Measurement Location L , Lmhn Sample Times (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) ST -1 ST -2 Just north of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:51 — 9:06 a.m. 53.4 50.0 61.0 Middle of the parking lot 9:10-9:25 a.m. 53.3 49.7 60.4 for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. ST -3a Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 8:30 —8:45 a.m. 58.0 55.4 61.9 ST -3b Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 10:03 — 10:18 a.m. 58.2 53.9 67.7 ST -4 Osage Park southern boundary near single- family residence, south of Pickleball courts. 9:27 —9:42 a.m. 54.2 50.7 62.4 ST -5 Just west of the basketball courts at the Charlotte Wood Middle School. 9:46 — 10:01 a.m. 57.7 54.1 69.9 Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A -weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Page 4 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Table 2 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Measurement Location Lmin Lmax Sample Times Leq (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) ST -1 ST -2 Just north of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. Middle of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:05 — 8:20 a.m. 8:24 — 8:39 a.m. 50.2 50.3 45.0 64.9 46.7 64.6 ST -3 Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 9:13 —9:28 a.m. 53.2 44.3 66.0 ST -4 Osage Park southern boundary near single- family residence, south of Pickleball courts. 8:53 — 9:08 a.m. 45.7 41.2 55.0 ST -5 Just west of the basketball courts at the Charlotte Wood Middle School. 9:30 — 9:45 a.m. 47.1 42.1 58.7 Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A -weighted decibel; Lm;,, = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Page 5 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Fiaure 1 Aooroximate Noise Monitoring Locations 0 41ff Short Term Nome Measurements (ST) 75 150 AFeet Imagery piovided by A4rcrosoft any and its licensors « 2023. Page 6 Results Town of Danville Osage Park Picklebail Noise Study A property of sound is that it attenuates, or drops off, as the distance from the noise source increases. For a point source, such as pickleball courts, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source (Caltrans 2013). The project would generate noise at the nearby sensitive receptors and the attenuation rate is applied to estimate noise levels at the sensitive receptors. Shielding effects from buildings, terrain, or other barriers are conservatively not factored into the attenuation calculations for the purposes of this analysis. For the purposes of this analysis and based on information from the Town, the pickleball courts operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Recreational noise would continue to consist of noise from tennis and/or pickleball being played as under existing conditions, including noise from the ball hitting a racquet, noise from the ball bouncing off the court, noise from the ball hitting the chain link fence, and noise from players and spectators talking. As shown in Table 1, during measurement ST -3 a single game of pickleball generates noise levels of up to 58.2 dBA Leq at a distance of approximately 50 feet. A worst-case scenario was modeled assuming that all pickleball courts and tennis courts were being used simultaneously. The estimated hourly Leq value at the property line is then converted to an Ldn value assuming a worst-case scenario of all courts in operation between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Attachment A includes the noise calculations. The results of modeling indicate that project operational recreational noise levels for all eight pickleball operating simultaneously would result in a noise level of up to 53 Ldn at the closest residential property line to the south and up to 55 Ldn at the closest residential property line to the west. This would be below the threshold of 60 Ldn per Town of Danville General Plan Policy 27.09. Therefore, project operational noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. * This concludes our operational noise impact assessment of the proposed project. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about this environmental noise impact assessment or its findings. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Josh Carman, INCE-USA Director Page 7 Attachment A Supporting Noise Information Residences South Pickleball Court 1 Pickleball Court 2 Pickleball Court 3 Pickleball Court 4 Pickleball Court 5 Pickleball Court 6 Pickleball Court 7 Pickleball Court 8 Tennis Court 1 Tennis Court 2 Tennis Court 3 Tennis Court 4 Combined Noise Level Residences West Pickleball Court 1 Pickleball Court 2 Pickleball Court 3 Pickleball Court 4 Pickleball Court 5 Pickleball Court 6 Pickleball Court 7 Pickleball Court 8 Tennis Court 1 Tennis Court 2 Tennis Court 3 Tennis Court 4 Combined Noise Level L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) 58.2 50 48.7 150 58.2 50 48.1 160 58.2 50 46.4 195 58.2 50 45.9 205 58.2 50 43.9 260 58.2 50 43.7 265 58.2 50 42.5 305 58.2 50 42.1 320 58.2 50 47.3 175 58.2 50 47.6 170 58.2 50 42.9 290 58.2 50 43.1 285 54.8 L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) 58.2 50 50.2 125 58.2 50 48.7 150 58.2 50 49.3 140 58.2 50 47.8 165 58.2 50 48.7 150 58.2 50 47.8 165 58.2 50 42.4 310 58.2 50 41.8 330 58.2 50 45.9 205 58.2 50 44.2 250 58.2 50 45.9 205 58.2 50 44.0 255 56.9 X X X X X X x X X X X X X X ¢xxxxxxx Energy+Penalty 316227.766 316227.766 316227.766 0 CO Co 0 CO CO 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 O ~ CD CD 0 0 N N N N N N O O N N CV N CV N r V- V- r rr CO CO r r r r T- 0, C) M CO M M CO 3.16227766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD r r r r r r r r r (D (0 (A N- N N N CO 0 0 r r T- 0, M M M In LO L0 L0 LO LO LO u) Ln In 10 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 In 0Ln Ln 10C) L L) L() LO LO LO LC) LC) 10 L(7 CO 00 00 CO N OD CO 00 CO 00 CO r r r r r r r r r T 00 00 00 N ti ti N- ti ti N- N N ,ft N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N EP CO CO (D CO CO CO CO CD O (D 0 co (D CO T- C M Ch M CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO W 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 ©o 0 ui6uiuiui i uiuiuiui01 000000 000 Ci 101010 up u) u) Ln u) u) up Ln u) 10 Lf) Q d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 666666666666666666666666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r Tr T r r r r r r r T r T- 0 T r r O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 = O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 666666666666666666666666 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r N 6,5 d 10 CO 66 o) O N C) O - N M d- (n Cp I- 00 6) r r r r r r r r r r N N N Cil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w r O (1) to .Q l4 �C 0) C >, RS t0 Energy+penalty LC) LC) X X X X X X XXX X X X X X Q X X X xX X X Cfl CO CO O Cfl CO CO Cfl CO N N CO 00 Ch 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O) O) CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r T N N N N N N N N N j Ch r f- N- h r - r- N. N- N 6) 6) N 00 00 00 00 00 co 00 00 00 00 T r r r r r r V'd' �' r 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 00 LC) LC) LL) LC) In LC) LC) LC) LC) r T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ r T r .. r r T 501187.2336 501187.2336 501187.2336 N- f— F- N.- Ns. � O O O O O 0 O O 0 O N. - GO Ln Ln Lfj LI) LO Lf) LC) Lf) Lf) LO LC) LO NNNNNNNNNNCV r r r T r r T r r T N N N N.: ti ti ti ti f` ti ti ti ti ti N. 00 O o0 00 00 00 o0 0000 O O W O 00 r r r r r r T •r ▪ T r r r r r T r r T r r r T r r .- co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O in LC) in L() Lf) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LO LC) LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O;O O O O O O O O g O O O O ti ti r ti ti ti f- r- t- N -0000O00000 t- ti f - GO LC) Lf) LC) LC) LO LC) LO LC) Lf) LC) '. 10 10 L() O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r T r r r ===== T r T r r O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 01:00:00.0 O O 0 O O 0 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 0 0 O O O O O O O r r 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r N cM 4 LCD CO ti 06 O) O r N 00 O r N 00 d LC) CO I- 00 6> T r r r T r r r T r N CV N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kirniey>»iFlo iii MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Andrew Dillard Transportation Manager Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 From: Ben Huie, P.E. Connie Leung, P.E Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: November 3, 2023 Subject: Danville Pickleball Courts Transportation Impact Analysis - Draft Memorandum INTRODUCTION The Danville Pickleball Courts project ("Project") proposes to construct additional pickleball courts at the Osage Station Park in Danville, CA. The existing site, located at 876 Orange Blossom Way, currently has three (3) tennis courts and two (2) pickleball courts on the southwest corner of Osage Station Park. The Project is proposing the following two scenarios to increase the number of pickleball courts: • Scenario #1 — 3 tennis courts and 6 pickleball courts (4 additional pickleball courts) • Scenario #2 — 3 tennis courts and 8 pickleball courts (6 additional pickleball courts) The primary parking lot for visitors is the Osage Station Park South parking lot but visitors may also park at the Osage Station Park North parking lot and the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. The Town of Danville (Town) has requested that Kimley-Horn prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project to determine potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study also includes a roadway capacity analysis for the four roadway segments shown below, as well as a parking occupancy and demand analysis to determine the effects of the proposed project. This memorandum discusses the methodology, analysis, and results of the transportation analysis. • Roadway Analysis Segments: o Orange Blossom Way (south of Osage Station Park South Parking Lot Entry) o Orange Blossom Way (north of Osage Station Park South Parking Lot Entry) o Osage Station Park Driveway (east of Orange Blossom Way) o El Capitan Drive (west of Orange Blossom Way) kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton. CA 94588 925-398-4840 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn METHODOLOGY Page 2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) With the passage of SB 743, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if new development will result in a "significant transportation impact" under the CEQA. SB 743 is part of a long-standing policy effort by the California legislature to improve California's sustainability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through denser infill development, a reduction in single occupancy vehicles, improved mass transit, and other actions. Recognizing that the prior environmental -based transportation analysis techniques were, at times, encouraging development that is inconsistent with this vision, the legislature took the extraordinary step to change the basis of environmental analysis for transportation impacts from Level of Service (LOS) to VMT. VMT is understood to be a good proxy for evaluating air quality and other transportation related impacts that the State is actively trying to address. While the use of VMT to determine significant transportation impacts has only been considered recently, it is not a new performance metric and has long been used as a basis for transportation system evaluations and as an important metric for evaluating the performance of Travel Demand Models. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 identifies VMT as the most appropriate criteria to evaluate a Project's transportation impacts. While the Town of Danville has not adopted any CEQA thresholds related to VMT, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) established VMT as the methodology for evaluating transportation impacts and identified guidelines for evaluating VMT impacts in June 2020. CCTA identifies screening criteria for projects that are expected to have a less than significant VMT impact. The screening criteria includes the following: • Projects of 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. • Public facilities (e.g., emergency services, passive parks (low -intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. To determine whether a significant impact occurs as a result of implementing the Project, a screening analysis was conducted to compare the effects of the addition of the Project against the above screening criteria. Roadway Segments Roadway segments were analyzed based on volumes and compared against roadway capacities, consistent with the 2030 Town of Danville General Plan' roadway capacity thresholds. Capacities were determined based on roadway classification as defined in the Mobility Chapter of the Town of Danville General Plan. The Town of Danville 2030 General Plan, Chapter 4 Mobility, Town of Danville, March 19, 2013. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 Kimiey>»Horn PARKING ANALYSIS Page 3 A parking analysis was conducted to determine if adequate off-street parking is provided at the three parking lots available for visitors to meet the additional parking demand generated by the proposed pickleball project. Peak parking demand for the proposed project was added to existing parking occupancy data to determine the peak parking demand under existing plus project conditions for Scenarios #1 and #2. The peak parking demand under existing plus project conditions were then compared to the available parking within the three parking lots to determine whether sufficient parking is provided. Existing Parking Occupancy A figure of the three parking lot locations, in relation to the proposed pickleball courts, are shown in Figure 1. Based on Google aerial images, the total existing parking supply is 318 parking spaces, with 64 available parking spaces in the Osage Station Park South parking lot, 132 available parking spaces in the Osage Station Park North parking lot, and 122 available parking spaces in the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. Existing parking occupancy data was provided by the Town for the three parking lots which were collected from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 and Saturday, June 3, 2023 in 15 -minute increments. The maximum 15 -minute parking occupancies were determined for each hour to reduce the data to hourly parking occupancies and are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 for a weekday and Saturday, respectively. Existing parking occupancy data is provided in Attachment A. It should be noted that existing parking occupancies were determined by adding and subtracting the inbound and outbound volumes at the parking lot driveways to the baseline parking occupancy count collected at the start of the survey. This may explain why the existing parking occupancies exceed 100 percent for certain hours. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the peak parking occupancy for all three parking lots occurs at 6:00 PM with 273 parking spaces occupied (86 percent occupancy) on a weekday and at 10:00 AM with 240 parking spaces occupied (75 percent occupancy) on a Saturday. During the weekday peak parking occupancy, the Osage Station North and Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lots are fully occupied while the Osage Station South still has available parking spaces (38 percent occupied). During the Saturday peak parking occupancy, the Osage Station South and North parking lots are almost fully occupied while the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot still has available parking spaces (43 percent occupied). kimley-horn.corn 4637 Chabot Dr. Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300. Pleasanton. CA 94588 Kimley>»Horn Figure 1 — Parking Lot Locations Osage Station North Parking Lot; Osage Station Park Proposed Pickleball Project Osage Station South Parking Lot Charlotte Wood Middle School Parking Lot Table 1 — Existing Parking Occupancy (Weekday) Page 4 Parking Lot: Osage Station South Total Available64 Percent Spaces: Occupied Osage Station North 132 Percent Occupied Charlotte Wood Middle School 122 Percent Occupied Total 318 Percent Occupied 7:00 AM 11 17% 4 3% 18 15% 33 10% 8:00 AM 12 9:00 AM 21 19% 33% 6 16 38 43 57 5% 12% 29% 33% . 43% 54 74 66 64 44% 61% 54% 52% 72 111 127 130 138 23% 35% 40% 41% 43% 10:00 AM _ 23 36% 11:00 AM 23 36% _ 12:00 PM 17 27% 64 52% 1:00 PM 13 20% 55 42% 65 53% 133 42% 2:00 PM 23 • 36% 44 33% 117 61 60 96% 50% 49% 184 90 58% 28% _ 3:00 PM 7 11% 4:00 PM 18 28% 22 17% 108 82% 186 58% _ 5:00 PM 19 30% 6:00 PM 24 38% 135 102% 121 j 92% 110 128 90% 105% 264 273 83% 86% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Parking occupancies exceeding 100 percent are shown in red. kimley-horn.com 925-398-4840 Kimsey>>> Horn Table 2 - Existing Parking Occupancy (Saturday) Page 5 Parking Lot. Total Available Spaces 7:00 AM Osage Station South 64 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 17 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM Percent Occupied 27% 41 64% 82 97% 61 95% 41 64% 37 58% 50 45 21 18 14_ 12 Osage Station North Percent Occupied 132 Charlotte Wood Middle School 127 Percent 318 Occupied Total Percent Occupied 47 36% 95 72% 113 86% 126 95% 123 93% 124 94% 127 98%a 87 66% 93 70% 83 63% 56 42% 35 27% 78% 70% 33% 28% 22% 19% 19 16% 43 35% 45 37% 53 43% 52 43% 51 42% 49 40% 16 13% 2 2% 1 1% ----------------- ----- 1 1% 3 2% 83 26% 179 56% 220 69% 240 75% 216 212 68% 67% 226 71% 148 47% 116 36% 102 32% 71 22% 50 16% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Proposed Parking Demand The ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5t" Edition2, was used to determine the peak parking demand for the proposed project. A land use for pickleball courts is not provided in the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Therefore, parking generation rates for ITE land use code 490 (Tennis Court) were used instead. The average rate for ITE land use code 490 is 2.67 parking spaces per tennis court for a Saturday (no weekday data is provided). However, pickleball is typically a doubles game with four people on each court whereas tennis is typically a singles game with two people on each court. Therefore, an adjustment factor of 1.5 was applied to the average parking rate to achieve an adjusted rate of 4 parking spaces per pickleball court. Assuming a doubles game with four players on each court, this results in one parking space per player. Applying the adjusted parking rate to the proposed pickleball courts results in an additional peak parking demand of 16 parking spaces and 24 parking spaces for Scenario #1 (four additional courts) and Scenario #2 (six additional courts), respectively. To determine the hourly parking demand throughout a typical weekday and Saturday, time of day percent distributions were derived from the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Time of day distributions are not available for ITE land use code 490 (Tennis Court), therefore data for ITE land use code 491 (Racquet/Tennis Club) was used instead. The hourly parking demand for a typical weekday and Saturday were then added to the existing parking occupancy as shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. 2 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., 2019. kimley-horn.corn 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn Table 3 - Proposed Parking Demand (Weekday) Parking Lot. Total Existing Parking Occupancy Total Available Spaces: 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM_ 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 318 Percent Occupied Page 6 Scenario #1 Parking Demand Scenario #2 Parking Demand Existing Proposed Plus Proposed Percent Occupied Existing Proposed Plus Proposed Percent Occupied 33 10% 9 42 13% 14 47 15% 72 23% 81 25% 111 127 130 138 133 184 90 186 264 273 35% 120 38% 40% 9 136 43% 41% 43% 42% • 58% 28% 10 140 44% 11 149 47% 14 147 46% 14 14 14 15 17 21 86 27% 125 39% 141 44% 58% 15 199 16 106 16 202 63% 33% 64% 83% 14 278 86% 10 283 87% 89% 23 24 24 21 16 145 155 154 207 46% 49% 48% 65% 114 210 285 36% 66% 90% 289 91% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and highlighted. Percent distributions are not provided for 7:00 AM, 8:00 AM, and 9:00 AM. Therefore, the percent distribution for the adjacent time period of 10:00 AM was used instead. Table 4 - Proposed Parking Demand (Saturday) Parking Lot: Total Existing Parking Occupancy Total Available Spaces: 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6.00 PM 318 Percent Occupied Scenario #1 Parking Demand Scenario #2 Parking Demand Existing Proposed Plus Proposed Percent Occupied Existing Proposed Plus Proposed Percent Occupied 83 179 220 240 216 212 226 148 116 102 71 50 26% 56% 69% 75% 68% 67% 16 99 31% 24 107 16 195 61% 24 203 71% 16 13 14 15 13 236 74% 230 72% 24 20 21 244 34% 64% 77% 0 260---- -- 82/0 237 227 71% 23 235 47% 14 162 75% 51% 20 i 246 21 36% 32% 22% 16% 12 10 12 128 40% 112 35% 83 26% 19 16 18 169 135 118 89 75% 74% 77% 53% 42% 37% 28% 12 62 19% 18 68 21% Note: Peak parking occupancy is shown in bold and j'1,9. Percent distribu ions are not provided for 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Therefore, the percent distributions for the adjacent time periods of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM were used instead. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn Page 7 As shown in Tables 3 and 4 for Scenario #1, the existing plus proposed parking demand with the additional four (4) pickleball courts results in a peak parking demand of 283 parking spaces (89 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and 253 parking spaces (80 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. For Scenario #2, the existing plus proposed parking demand with the additional six (6) pickleball courts results in a peak parking demand of 289 parking spaces (91 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and 260 parking spaces (82 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. Therefore, the existing parking supply for all three parking lots is sufficient to meet the proposed parking demand for the additional pickleball courts under Scenarios #1 and #2. As mentioned previously, the existing weekday parking occupancies for the Osage Station South parking lot is not yet fully occupied with a peak parking occupancy of 24 parking spaces out of 64 available parking spaces. This results in 40 available parking spaces and is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for Scenario #1 (16 parking spaces) and Scenario #2 (24 parking spaces). Therefore, during the weekday peak, visitors for the pickleball courts may use the nearby Osage Station South parking lot. During Saturdays, the existing parking occupancies for the Osage Station South and North parking lots are almost fully occupied and does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak parking demand for Scenarios #1 and #2. However, the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot is not yet fully occupied with a peak parking occupancy of 53 parking spaces out of 122 available parking spaces. This results in 69 available parking spaces and is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for Scenario #1 (16 parking spaces) and Scenario #2 (24 parking spaces). Therefore, during the Saturday peak, visitors for the pickleball courts may use the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. ROADWAY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Roadway analysis was evaluated at each of the four (4) study roadway segments using the methodology consistent with the 2030 Town of Danville General Plan roadway capacity thresholds. Daily roadway volumes were analyzed rather than peak hour volumes since roadway capacities provided in the general plan are based on vehicles per day rather than vehicles per hour. Roadway segments are assumed to the deficient when daily volumes exceed the capacity defined for its roadway classification. Existing Conditions 24-hour roadway volumes along each roadway segment were provided by the Town and are provided in Attachment B. Volumes along Orange Blossom Way and Osage Station Park Driveway were collected on Wednesday (May 24, 2023), Thursday (May 25, 2023), and Saturday (May 27, 2023). Volumes along El Capitan Drive were collected on Wednesday (September 8, 2021) and Thursday (September 9, 2021). Daily volumes for each segment are summarized in Table 5. As a conservative approach, the maximum daily weekday volumes were used for the existing conditions analysis. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton. CA 94588 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn Table 5 — Existing Roadway Volumes (Daily) Page 8 # Roadway Segment Wed, Daily Volume Thurs, Sat, Wed, Thurs, Maximum Daily Volume Orange Blossom Way south 5124/23 5/25/23 5/27/23 9/8/21 9/9/21 of Osage Station Park Local Orange Blossom Way south 1,251 Driveway of Osage Station Park 1,210 1,251 720 N/A N/A 1,251 1,499 Driveway Driveway 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way Orange Blossom Way north 1,499 771 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon Minor Collector 10,000 2 of Osage Station Park 928 1,049 415 N/A N/A 1,049 Driveway Osage Station Park 3 Driveway east of Orange 726 771 465 N/A N/A 771 Blossom Way 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon N/A N/A N/A 3,000 3,045 3,045 Note: Roadway volumes shown are the total of both directions Volumes were not collected on days shown with "N/A". Existing daily roadway volumes were compared against the capacity thresholds (vehicles per day) defined in the Town of Danville General Plan. Orange Blossom Way and Osage Station Park Driveway are classified as a local roadway with a capacity Tess than 1,500 vehicles per day. El Capitan Drive is classified as a minor collector with a capacity between 3,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. As shown in Table 6, existing daily roadway volumes are below the capacity thresholds for all roadway segments. Table 6 — Existing Roadway Segment Analysis (Daily) # Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Capacity (vehicles per day) Scenario Existing Volume (vehicles per day) Orange Blossom Way south 1 of Osage Station Park Local 1,499 1,251 Driveway Orange Blossom Way north 2 of Osage Station Park Local 1,499 1,049 Driveway 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way Local 1,499 771 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon Minor Collector 10,000 3,045 Note: Roadway volumes shown are the total of both directions. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn Page 9 Trip Generation Trip generation for developments is typically calculated based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition3. This is the standard reference for determining trip generation for potential projects. Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were calculated based on data within this reference. For some land uses, an average rate and a fitted curve equation are provided for the sample data. Since the ITE Trip Generation Manual does not have a land use for pickieball courts, the average rate for ITE land use 490 (Tennis Court) was used instead. Consistent with the parking analysis, an adjustment factor of 1.5 was applied to the average trip generation rate to reflect a doubles game. The total proposed project trip generation is shown in Table 7 for Scenarios #1 and #2. As shown in the table, Scenario #1 will generate 182 daily trips and 26 PM peak hour trips, while Scenario #2 will generate 273 daily trips and 39 PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour trip generation is not shown since trip generation rates for the AM peak hour are not available for ITE 490 (Tennis Court). Table 7 - Proposed Project Trip Generation Land Use ITE Land Size (Units) Use Code Rate Daily Trips Pickleball Courts PM Peak Hour In Out Total 490 (Tennis Court) 4 Courts (Scenario #1) Daily: 30.32 PM: 4.21 121 8 9 17 Adjustment Factor for Pickleball 61 4 5 9 Total 182 12 14 26 6 Courts (Scenario #2) Daily: 30.32 PM: 4.21 182 13 13 26 Adjustment Factor for Pickleball 91 6 7 13 Total 273 19 20 39 Notes: 1. AM peak hour trip generation rates are not available for ITE land use code 490 (Tennis Courts). Therefore, no AM peak hour trip generation is shown. 2. The adjustment factor for pickieball being a doubles sport is conservative and assumes that tennis players all play singles and pickieball players all play doubles. Therefore, the tennis courts trip generation was adjusted by a factor of 1.5 for pickieball courts, to be conservative. Trip Distribution and Assignment The Project's trip distribution was estimated based on the project access locations, freeway access, location of existing pickleballs courts, and roadway network within the study area. The trips were distributed as follows: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., 2021. kimley-horn.corn 4637 Chabot Dr. Suite 300, Pleasanton. CA 94588 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn • El Capitan Drive west of Orange Blossom Way — 75 percent • El Capitan Drive east of Orange Blossom Way — 15 percent • Orange Blossom Way north of Project Driveway —10 percent Page 10 This trip distribution assumes that the majority of vehicle trips would use Camino Ramon to the west to access 1-680 and other nearby residences. Only 10 percent of the vehicle trips were assumed to be from the north on Orange Blossom Way because it is assumed that regional traffic would use El Capitan Drive and local traffic from the north would likely walk or bicycle to the Osage Station Park. Based on the assumed trip distribution, the daily volumes generated by the project were assigned to the roadway segments and results in the project volumes shown in Table 8 for Scenarios #1 and #2. As mentioned previously, daily project volumes were analyzed rather than PM peak hour trips as roadway capacities provided in the general plan are based on vehicles per day rather than vehicles per hour. Table 8 — Project Trip Assignment (Daily) Scenario #1 Scenario #2 # Roadway Segment (4 Pickleball Courts) (6 Pickleball Courts) vehicles per day vehicles per day 1 Orange Blossom Way south of Osage Station Park Driveway 164 246 2 Orange Blossom Way north of Osage Station Park Driveway 18 27 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way 182 273 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon 137 205 Note: Project volumes shown are the total of both directions. Existing Plus Project Conditions Daily project volumes were added to the existing roadway segment volumes and are shown in Table 9. As shown in the table, all roadway segment volumes under existing plus project conditions are below the capacity threshold. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 925-398-4840 Kimley>»Horn Table 9 — Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis (Daily) Page 11 # Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Capacity (Vehicles per day) Existing Volume (vehicles per day) Scenario Existing + Scenario #1 (vehicles per day) Existing + Scenario #2 (vehicles per day) 1 Orange Blossom Way south of Osage Station Park Driveway Local 1,499 1,251 1,415 1,497 2 Orange Blossom Way north of Osage Station Park Driveway Local 1,499 1,049 1,067 1,076 3 Osage Station Park Driveway east of Orange Blossom Way Local 1,499 771 953 1,044 4 El Capitan Drive east of Camino Ramon Minor Collector 10,000 3,045 3,182 3,250 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) As noted in the Methodology section of this memorandum, CCTA's Project VMT screening criteria includes the following: • Projects of 10,000 square feet or Tess of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. • Public facilities (e.g., emergency services, passive parks (low -intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. When calculating the size of the Project, the four (Scenario 1) and six (Scenario 2) additional pickleball courts were considered. A pickleball court itself is generally 880 square -feet (20 feet by 44 feet), which would equate to 5,280 square -feet of total space when 6 courts are considered. When calculating the entire size, which includes accounting for space between courts, an additional 75 - percent of the size of the pickleball court is required. This would result in a total space requirement of 9,240 square -feet, which is less than the 10,000 square -foot screening threshold provided above. The Project is expected to generate approximately 182 trips per day for Scenario 1 and 273 trips per day for Scenario 2. Using CCTA's screening criteria of 836 VMT per day, this would require an average roundtrip trip length of 4.6 -miles for Scenario 1 (2.3 -miles one-way) or 3.1 -miles for Scenario 2 (1.55 -miles one-way) to fall below the daily VMT threshold. As the trips associated with the Project are expected to be predominantly from within the Town, with a majority occurring in the general vicinity of the Project, it is likely that the required trip lengths would occur. However, because a trip length study of existing trips was not conducted, it cannot be concluded whether the 836 daily VMT threshold would be reached. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr. Suite 300. Pleasanton, CA 94588 Kimley>»Horn Page 12 When evaluating the Project against the second screening criteria, it was concluded that the Project would be considered a locally serving public facility based on the Project expanding an existing use in a public park. In addition, as the users of the Project would come from the general vicinity of the Project or predominately within the Town, this would also qualify the Project as a locally serving public facility. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Project meets this screening criteria. When considering the impact the Project would have on existing VMT within the region, it is likely that the Project would reduce VMT compared to Existing Conditions. This is because the Project is an expansion of existing Pickleball courts, likely responding to a latent demand for Pickleball courts that is currently being supplied by additional courts outside of the Town. Simply put, under Existing Conditions, some residents of Danville currently drive outside of the Town for pickleball courts as the existing ones are occupied. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, these same residents would use the courts provided by the Project. Therefore, the amount of VMT that Danville and other local residents would produce to access pickleball courts would be reduced. Based on this assessment and the results of the screening analysis, it can be concluded that the Project would result in a less than significant impact. CONCLUSION The project proposes to construct additional pickleball courts at Osage Station Park in Danville, CA. Two scenarios are considered for the project with Scenario #1 proposing 4 additional pickleball courts and Scenario #2 proposing 6 additional pickleball courts at the project site. Visitors of the pickleball courts can park at the Osage Station Park South parking lot, the Osage Station Park North parking lot, and the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot. These parking lots provided a total of 318 parking spaces. Peak parking demands for Scenarios #1 and #2 were added to existing parking occupancies to determine the peak parking demand under existing plus project conditions. For Scenario #1, the peak parking demand occurs at 6:00 PM with a demand of 283 parking spaces (89 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and at 10:00 AM with a demand of 253 parking spaces (80 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. For Scenario #2, the peak parking demand occurs at 6:00 PM with a demand of 289 parking spaces (91 percent occupancy) for a typical weekday and at 10:00 AM with a demand of 260 parking spaces (82 percent occupancy) for a Saturday. Therefore, the available parking supply for all three parking Tots of 318 parking spaces is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for Scenario #1 and #2 for a typical weekday and Saturday. During weekdays, visitors may park at the nearby Osage Station South Parking lot as there is available parking spaces to meet the peak parking demand for Scenarios #1 and #2 and the other two parking lots are fully occupied. During Saturdays, visitors may park at the Charlotte Wood Middle School parking lot as there is available parking spaces to meet the peak parking demand for Scenarios #1 and #2 and the other two parking lots near full capacity. With the addition of the project, the daily roadway volumes under existing plus project conditions would result in volumes less than the capacity threshold for all segments under Scenario #1 and #2. Therefore, the project would not generate any deficiencies on the nearby roadway segments for both scenarios. kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Kimiey>» Horn Page 13 Based on the VMT analysis, the results showed that the project would satisfy CCTA's VMT screening criteria for public facilities. Since the project is expanding an existing use within a public park and would generate users from the general vicinity of the project site, the project is considered a locally serving public facility. In addition, the project is likely responding to the increase in demand for Pickleball courts and therefore, residents currently traveling outside of the Town will now use the proposed courts within the Town. As a result, the amount of VMT that Danville and other local residents would produce to access the pickieball courts would be reduced. Therefore, the project would result in a Tess than significant VMT impact. Attachments: Attachment A — Existing Parking Occupancy Data Attachment B — Average Daily Traffic Volumes kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Attachment A Baseline Count 3 Date 5/24/2023 Charlotte Wood Middle School Driveway TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 3 4 0 7:15 7 4 0 7:30 11 9 2 7:45 18 19 3 8:00 34 13 4 8:15 43 10 0 8:30 53 6 5 8:45 54 14 11 9:00 57 90 73 9:15 74 177 181 9:30 70 17 25 9:45 62 7 4 10:00 65 3 4 10:15 64 1 1 10:30 64 7 5 10:45 66 5 8 11:00 63 3 2 11:15 64 3 6 11:30 61 2 3 11:45 60 5 1 12:00 64 2 3 12:15 63 2 3 12:30 62 5 3 12:45 64 4 3 13:00 65 3 5 13:15 63 5 4 13:30 64 2 4 13:45 62 2 2 14:00 62 9 8 14:15 63 20 5 14:30 78 54 15 14:45 117 57 113 15:00 61 30 62 15:15 29 22 30 15:30 21 9 12 15:45 18 18 13 16:00 23 24 19 16:15 28 20 7 16:30 41 28 9 16:45 60 28 11 17:00 77 38 27 17:15 88 51 29 17:30 110 41 45 17:45 106 36 40 18:00 102 17 30 18:15 89 16 12 18:30 93 43 8 18:45 128 66 45 Baseline Count 4 Date 5/24/2023 n :_I_1_L.. 11 I .. Osage dation 5ouiii 1 i enma « PK.RICUdII wt Driveway TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 4 7:15 7 7:30 8 7:45 11 8:00 9 8:15 9 8:30 12 8:45 12 9:00 12 9:15 14 9:30 18 9:45 21 10:00 23 10:15 23 10:30 21 10:45 19 11:00 23 11:15 19 11:30 18 11:45 13 12:00 17 12:15 17 12:30 14 12:45 13 13:00 13 13:15 13 13:30 12 13:45 10 14:00 8 14:15 8 14:30 15 14:45 ' 23 15:00 7 15:15 4 15:30 6 15:45 7 16:00 17 16:15 18 16:30 13 16:45 16 17:00 14 17:15 13 17:30 17 17:45 19 18:00 20 18:15 18 18:30 24 18:45 24 Baseline Count 0 Date 5/24/2023 Osage Station North Driveway TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 0 0 0 7:15 0 3 0 7:30 3 2 1 7:45 4 1 1 8:00 4 0 2 8:15 2 5 2 8:30 5 5 4 8:45 6 8 2 9:00 12 7 6 9:15 13 5 8 9:30 10 7 1 9:45 16 9 3 10:00 22 7 2 10:15 27 9 5 10:30 31 11 4 10:45 38 10 5 11:00 43 6 12 11:15 37 10 6 11:30 41 12 12 11:45 41 17 15 12:00 43 15 10 12:15 48 10 5 12:30 53 6 2 12:45 57 8 10 13:00 55 9 10 13:15 54 7 18 13:30 43 11 14 13:45 40 14 10 14:00 44 4 12 14:15 36 8 19 14:30 25 12 6 14:45 31 33 42 15:00 22 6 11 15:15 17 5 4 15:30 18 11 8 15:45 21 8 7 16:00 22 28 8 16:15 42 58 14 16:30 86 36 14 16:45 108 25 19 17:00 114 30 10 17:15 134 32 31 17:30 135 19 19 17:45 135 12 26 18:00 121 9 42 18:15 88 10 15 18:30 83 6 9 18:45 80 10 10 Baseline Count 1 Date 6/3/2023 \t,Innri TAirlrllc Crhnnl Driveway TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 1 4 0 0 7:15 5 2 1 0 7:30 6 16 1 0 7:45 19 23 1 2 8:00 41 1 0 0 8:15 42 2 1 0 8:30 43 1 1 0 8:45 42 6 3 1 9:00 45 3 5 0 9:15 43 0 0 0 9:30 43 2 2 0 9:45 43 1 1 0 10:00 42 6 0 1 10:15 47 6 1 1 10:30 52 4 3 0 10:45 53 3 4 0 11:00 52 1 2 0 11:15 51 3 3 0 11:30 51 1 2 0 11:45 50 4 3 0 12:00 51 0 4 0 12:15 47 0 0 0 12:30 47 1 1 0 12:45 47 4 2 0 13:00 48 2 1 1 13:15 49 1 1 0 13:30 48 3 4 1 13:45 37 11 30 10 14:00 16 5 12 2 14:15 6 7 8 3 14:30 5 1 3 0 14:45 3 0 1 0 15:00 2 1 1 0 15:15 2 0 1 0 15:30 1 1 0 0 15:45 2 0 1 0 16:00 1 0 0 0 16:15 1 1 1 0 16:30 1 1 1 0 16:45 1 0 0 0 17:00 1 1 1 0 17:15 1 0 0 0 17:30 1 0 0 0 17:45 1 3 2 0 18:00 2 0 0 0 18:15 2 1 1 0 18:30 2 2 1 0 18:45 3 2 1 0 Baseline Count 7 Date 6/3/2023 Osage Station South (Tennis & Pickleball Lot) Driveway TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 7 9 2 7:15 14 2 1 7:30 15 4 2 7:45 17 12 5 8:00 24 15 6 8:15 33 9 1 8:30 41 6 7 8:45 40 25 3 9:00 62 10 15 9:15 57 5 5 9:30 57 8 4 9:45 61 12 12 10:00 61 4 4 10:15 61 4 8 10:30 57 3 8 10:45 52 6 17 11:00 41 8 20 11:15 29 6 7 11:30 28 8 8 11:45 28 6 3 12:00 31 6 4 12:15 33 5 7 12:30 31 6 0 12:45 37 5 0 13:00 42 8 4 13:15 46 5 1 13:30 50 1 4 13:45 47 3 5 14:00 45 2 29 14:15 18 2 7 14:30 13 3 2 14:45 14 12 9 15:00 17 4 4 15:15 17 6 2 15:30 21 2 5 15:45 18 2 2 16:00 18 10 10 16:15 18 0 3 16:30 15 4 3 16:45 16 3 9 17:00 10 6 7 17:15 9 2 1 17:30 10 5 1 17:45 14 0 3 18:00 11 2 4 18:15 9 2 0 18:30 11 4 3 18:45 12 3 3 Baseline Count Date Osage Station North 33 6/3/2023 Driveway TIME PARKED IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 7:00 33 8 3 7:15 38 2 0 • 7:30 40 13 6 7:45 47 30 7 8:00 70 23 9 8:15 84 15 11 8:30 88 16 9 8:45 95 11 10 9:00 96 23 6 9:15 113 13 13 9:30 113 8 8 9:45 113 20 20 10:00 113 24 14 10:15 123 22 19 10:30 126 20 33 10:45 113 37 52 11:00 98 36 25 11:15 109 21 12 11:30 118 23 18 11:45 123 22 21 12:00 124 12 12 12:15 124 13 15 12:30 122 14 15 12:45 121 21 20 13:00 122 14 9 13:15 127 8 22 13:30 113 14 31 13:45 96 26 35 14:00 87 19 39 14:15 67 14 12 14:30 69 10 11 14:45 68 19 6 15:00 81 14 2 15:15 93 4 12 15:30 85 5 8 15:45 82 6 8 16:00 80 6 3 16:15 83 8 21 16:30 70 10 12 16:45 68 12 24 17:00 56 16 18 17:15 54 6 8 17:30 52 2 17 17:45 37 3 5 18:00 35 6 13 18:15 28 6 18 18:30 16 5 9 18:45 12 4 8 Attachment B DATA SOLUTIONS O J t O y . Y a O) y 0 0 T E N O y N OM CO p) N CO CO N ON N 0) 111 J O u • N O O A- V m 0 A g) co 0 Co V M {G 0 0 ( N M N 0 P N O O O • (O N ti 7 N N Off] O 0 - O N 0 0 — 0 CO O N 0 0 0 0 Ln N- ti n co N COV 0 OM N 00 CO M CO CO (O CAl (0 0) M N r O O O CO CA oo N V N 4 O O O O O 'd' W N N •- 0 0 O N (0 0 N tb V) N M O M O O 4 �- f� co N O •- 0 0 r O v) N (D V N O N O O O 0 O N CO N M CO N ti • '• 4) N 0 COO 0 COCO • N Cq 0 CO V� (00 2 �M{ N M ti V c0 00 MO V CO CO CO O 0 < < < < < < Q < 2M222< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O 0 0 r N M V ai O r oD 6 Oo v • 0_ d a 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 646 (D 0 0 . ivuu-weeK average incivaes aata between I uesday and I hursday. J co O 0 d A 0 0 z > 3 M E yIn O M m 1 n Q1 6 ) c C R N 0 N N iA W C d O O v °f m JQU) •N`) �1 p r N O 0 r M Q N ' 0©0 N QV 1 A N • > m y CO r r O O .- co N .Q- VQ. (A W v m _ CO D N 0 0 0 r N , M q- N Z � Q 1I7 CO 07 (• if) K ro co T i Lo h M N tOn u'-- : N N W M ,r V Cl- M ... e- N WI tOO M V '07 N M ,- O\ Q N N a' c6 • Q 14 UU 14:U11 �G:UV F5 63 128 O0 T M ro N o o 0) J M F in z ro 0 1- T M N N C Nm Fri M L N 1A Z : . To 1- CO 'O N 0) C 9 0) 0 N m z . >, M (p N t9 N M N M O O r O O 0 `) rN N coM V H CO CO 01� N O OOM N CO O r O O O O (O N (p s- n- 0O O N uo 0 V M CO N COM N N N a Q pp O e 0) CO co NyNIW r OQV en r N MN' m o rr- N A- (� O M W (D If) O N r •- 4 0 `S' O NN CV S 0 „. N , I- CO >4 N LL N N CO z : , , , . N O (L) CO M N r O O O <D M M N •Q Y-• T M tU N a N - 0 0 0 0 Q m N OcoN 7 Ny N O) N N i co u Z r O N 01 pp N CO ip N W M Q 1` O a 'O Q Q 01 (P fA O n N ^ G Q r oo O M O Q N O M M aa N N r Q to to 0 ON tO N p N An C •.• Q OO ,P O M O O r r .- CD N , COco > CO CNO W r CO M cooo co N O N C 0 N E i- m N m Z O o o r o O 2 r- N C7 t0 0 N O 0 O 0 4- 000 a<aa<aQa a 0 0 0 0ohog ooO o0 0 o r (V M 4 6 O 1,..: 86 0)r N M N M M co co on Q N 4 M (O O CQ0 N 7 d N 2 N N O aaas0aa_a_ 0. O. a_ o 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0) Q i0 <O r O Oi 2 o_ 0 V) XI Z _O H J Q N H Q ■ O co cri y > W N ~O h TM O1 N O O m N yy to 8 3 M h O O O .- O O ` Kt)Orl O M O O O O O O tN O O O ,- O O M L0 4VW M O O N O M N m W N N N Q ON MM M (O eo Q� g:', a) O 4 ' r u) M N — N to O N V t` CO 0,NWa 00N (y V n O n W Cr<0 O 14:00 14:00 1400 39 54 93 r , • il a M N "ON m g 63 W 01 H a M co; 9 a) 3co N tri W r « C t- h TM {p N N m �:, 7j 10 N 0) N W0 m c h M iN In O 0 O O O O O ,- O 0 0 O 0 0 V' 0 O 0 0 0 CO 0) M M N W M •V 6) co .- N I" N LO 10 t P co CO PT N N M co N M N N O N N N N N O N s .- r O eq N O 1- N O N N M N .- O O O Lin -a o N CO O T N O a t. M N O N 2 O (p .N-- M oia N r d ;R TSV F 000000• O) N Hpi,00000 W 0 N N 0 ' CO �. CO M f 0 0 0 0 0 •V (D ti N O (O N O O 7 V' V' CO cn O l^9 O V' N I". In In O V' M N M "" O O O M O m M Q N h co N M it 8 �; C'' o 14:00 14:00 14:00 37 65 102 To G O > h l0M yO C N m 0 V �7 N N N m 0 O - O O N M A M 0 0 0 0 0 .- O' A N O 0 .- 0 0 O r1 04 M N 7 N N N M 7 N rM VV7 M 2 V M N N M O M hJ c7, csi N O O r N- N N e ,_o, en M VO O M N j„ NW 14:00 19:00 14:001 41 44 83 co E Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a ) 0 < < < < < < < < < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O O O O O O O O O 60 r i. ri v iii (o <0 m .- Q 0 o a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 si g' O a a a a. a a. n. a a a a 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o .- 0 (n v iii (fl <o Oi .- y' ;o e o O ti 4, a >° is 0, a a >° 0) 7t N ` U • O 0) @ 0) @ a)co co �0 c a 0) U )) E 2 U ,O - d a L Z ti n O etvio Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday _ 9/8/2021 _ 9/9/2021 9/1012021 9/11/2021 9/1212021 9/13/2021 9/14/2021 Mid -Week Avera.e Time EB WB Total 08 WB Total EB WB Total 013 WB Total EB WB Total 08 WB Total EB WB Total EB WO Total :12:00 AM 2 0 2 0 3 3 1 2 3 11.00 AM 1 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 12:00 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 - - - - 1 0 1 3'00 AM 0 1 1 1 1 2 - 1 1 2 4:OOAM 2 6 8 2 5 7 - - - 2 6 8 5:00 AM 5 16 21 4 10 14 - 5 13 18 • 6:00 AM 34 28 62 21 20 41 - - - - - - 28 24 52 7:00 AM 59 73 132 113 121 234 • - - 86 97 183 8:00 AM 113 130 243 167 248 415 - - - - - - - 140 189 329 9:00 AM 197 232 429 88 91 179 - - - 143 162 304 10:00 AM 59 100 159 54 69 123 - - - - - - - - 57 85 141 11:00 AM 75 79 154 60 87 147 - 68 83 151 12:00 PM 76 90 166 66 78 144 - - - - - - 71 84 155 1:00 PM 83 94 177 99 79 178 91 87 176 2:00 PM 182 175 357 154 205 359 - - - - - - 168 190 358 3:00 PM 130 134 264 133 126 259 - - - 132 130 262 4:00 PM 88 88 176 99 104 203 - - - - - - 94 96 190 5:00 PM 121 77 198 119 139 258 - 120 1C8 228 '6:00 PM 88 63 151 101 90 191 - - - - - 95 77 171 7-00 PM 67 85 152 69 66 135 • - - 68 76 144 8:00 PM 47 34 81 45 31 76 - - - 46 33 79 9:00 PM 25 12 37 31 14 45 28 13 41 10:OOPM 12 5 17 18 6 24 - - - - - 15 6 21 11:00 PM 3 4 7 6 1 7 5 3 -- 7 ... ........ ... Total 1,471 1.529 3.000 1.451 1.594 3.045 1,461 1.562 3,023 'on,o t dao/ 5t / 48°% 52% 48% 52% o O m ai �w. 0 0 M of 0 o ,n o o 0 o o 0 OS •d- c> P o n ai ? P n ) . Y 4 4 Q PM Peak 14:00 14:00 14.00 1400 14 00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14: VoL 182 175 357 154 205 359 ...166.. 190 .358__. m a c6 a) a) a m t6 N W O 17 c0 o CO com � m N O) • co @ N • 2 E - U U N o ,O n. "Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life' DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE LEAD AGENCY: Town of Danville, Planning Division NAME OF PROJECT: Town of Danville Pickleball Court Development PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Town is proposing to add up to six new pickleball courts at Osage Station Park where two courts currently exist. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS/MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project includes the construction of up to six new pickleball courts within an existing park within a residential development. The park currently hosts two pickleball courts and three tennis courts. Noise levels would temporarily be increased due to noise associated with the construction of the courts. The noise impact will be less than significant given required standard conditions of approval which define and limit hours of construction. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding potential noise impacts generated by the impact of the pickleball against the face of the pickleball. In order to study this potential impact, a noise study was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. The study's modeling concluded that using the sound meter set to slow and using "A" weighting, the noise levels would be below the threshold of 60 do found in the Town of Danville General Plan Policy 27.09. In order to address concerns that the nature of the noise generated by pickleball is of a different character due to its "impulsive" nature, the study additionlly modeled the noise generated by taking measurements with the 500 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3410 (925) 314-3400 • TT A r1T T1 rT11 TT n April 99, 7(1741 Page 2 sound meter set to "fast", including a 5 dB adjustment for impulsive noise and utilizing residential thresholds found in the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance (State of California 1977). Using those criteria, if unmitigated, project operational noise levels are anticipated to exceed several of the exterior noise thresholds at residences to the south and west. To mitigate potential noise impacts, the Town will affix sound blankets of a minimum 12 -foot height to the chain-link fences enclosing the courts along the project southern, western, and eastern court boundaries. The sound blankets shall be at least 1/8 -inch thick, continuous from grade to top of the blankets with no gaps, and have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28. Prior to project operation, post signs at the pickleball court entrances with a list of allowable USA Pickleball "Quiet Category" -compliant paddles. Non -quiet paddles shall be prohibited. Following project implementation, the Town shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to measure project operational noise levels to verify that noise levels at the closest residential property lines do not exceed the Town's thresholds. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, project operational noise would be conservatively reduced by at least 10 dBA. With sound blanket mitigation, project operational noise would not exceed significance thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE 1: Prior to project operation, aff x sound blankets of a minimum 12 foot height to the chain-link fences enclosing the courts along the project southern, western, and eastern court boundaries. The sound blankets shall be at least 1/8 -inch thick, continuous from grade to top of the blankets with no gaps, and have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28. MITIGATION MEASURE 2: Prior to project operation, post signs at the pickleball court entrances with a list of allowable USA Pickleball "Quiet Category" -compliant paddles. Non - quiet paddles shall be prohibited. MITIGATION MEASURE 3: Following project implementation, the Town shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to measure project operational noise levels to verify that noise levels at the closest residential property lines do not exceed the Town's thresholds. DETERMINATION: Based upon the above identified mitigation measures, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be April 29, 2024 Page 3 associated with the subject project. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared. The Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Department, Town of Danville. Copies of the Initial Study may be obtained at the Town offices located at 500 La Gonda Way, Danville, California 94526. ATTEST: Riley Anderson -Barrett Associate Planner April 15, 2024 Project No. 23-14340 Henry Perezalonso, CPRE Recreation, Arts & Community Services Director Town of Danville (925) 314-3454 Via email: hperezalonso@danville.ca.gov Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510 834 4455 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com Subject: Noise Study for the Osage Park Pickleball Project, Danville, California Dear Mr. Perezalonso: This technical letter report summarizes the results for the Osage Park pickleball noise study for the proposed project located at Osage Park in the Town of Danville. The noise study addresses potential noise impacts from implementation of the proposed project on nearby residences. This report was prepared by Josh Carman, INCE-USA. Mr. Carman is a Noise Director with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and has over 20 years of experience in the field of acoustics and environmental noise and has participated in the environmental review and monitoring process for a wide variety of projects in California, Washington, Nevada, and New York. Mr. Carman prepares noise and vibration assessments for environmental impact studies and technical studies in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using federal, state, and local guidelines and methodology. Mr. Carman is a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Project Understanding The project would involve expansion of the existing pickleball courts, from two to up to eight courts, along with bench seating near the courts. A total of three tennis courts would remain. Figure 1 shows the proposed project layout. Park operational hours of dawn to dusk seven days a week would remain. For the purposes of this analysis and based on information from the Town, the pickleball courts operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends depending on the season. The closest residences are immediately south of the project site on El Capitan Drive and additional residences are located to the west on Orange Blossom Way. Environmental Scientists Planners E n gine e r s Figure 1 Proposed Project Layout Noise Overview Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease. Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not "sound twice as loud" as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud. Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this "shielding" depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as Page 2 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any Targe structure blocking the line -of sight -will provide at least 5 dBA reduction in noise level at the receiver. The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A -weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Typically, Leq Is summed over a one-hour period. L. is the highest root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day as it can disrupt sleep. The sound level that is exceeded "n" percent of time during a given sample period is denoted as Ln. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time -varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the "median sound level." The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the "intrusive sound level." The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the "effective background level" or "residual noise level." Regulatory Framework State of California In 1977, the State of California Office of Noise Control published the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance (State of California 1977). This model ordinance was developed as a guide to assist local agencies such as cities and towns in the development of noise ordinances to control noise in their communities. While the State of California Office of Noise Control is no longer operational and has no authority over local noise control in the Town of Danville, the recommended noise limits in this guide are indicative of acceptable levels of community noise exposure. Table 1 shows the recommended exterior noise standards by receiving land use. Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)1• z Noise Zone Classification Rural Suburban Suburban Urban One & Two Family Residential 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 40 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 50 45 55 Multiple Dwelling 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 45 50 Residential 7:00 a.m. —10:00 p.m. 50 55 Public Space Limited Commercial 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 55 50 60 55 60 Page 3 Some Multiple Dwellings 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 60 Commercial 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 60 65 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Light Industrial Any Time 70 Heavy Industrial Any Time 75 Source: State of California Office of Noise Control, 1977. Notes: 1 The noise standard for that land use for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour [L50]; or The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour [L25]; or The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour [L8]; or The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour [L2]; or The noise standard plus 20 dB or the maximum measures ambient level, for any period of time. 2 In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone, such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits shall be reduced by 5 dB. Town of Danville General Plan The Town of Danville General Nan contains land use compatibility categories for community noise exposure, noise contour maps, and policies related to noise. The following goal and policy are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 27 Protect existing and future residents of Danville from hazards and nuisance associated with excessive levels of noise by maintaining or reducing noise intrusion levels in all areas of the Town to acceptable levels. Policy 27.09 Generally maintain exterior noise levels below 60 Ldn in areas where outdoor use is a major consideration, such as in residential backyards. Where the Town determines that this level cannot be achieved after reasonable mitigation has been applied, higher standards may be permitted at the discretion of the Town Council. In such cases, indoor noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Town of Danville Municipal Code The Town of Danville Municipal Code does not have any exterior noise standards. However, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make a loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of a neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. Thresholds of Significance To determine whether a project would have a significant noise impact, Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. For the purposes of this analysis, the project would be considered to have a Page 4 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study significant impact if operational noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn or the exterior noise level standards shown in Table 2 at nearby residences. The noise levels standards shown in Table 2 are based on the suburban daytime noise standards for single-family residences shown in Table 1 with an adjustment of 5 dBA down to account for the impulsive nature of pickleball noise. Table 2 Exterior Noise Thresholds Receiving Land Use Category L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax Single -Family Suburban 50 55 60 65 70 Notes: Includes 5 dBA adjustment down to account for impulsive sources. Ambient Noise Measurements To characterize ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project, five short-term noise level measurements were conducted on Saturday, July 8, 2023 and repeated on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. One additional short-term noise measurement was conducted on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, to document existing pickleball noise with a "fast" sound level meter setting. Short-term noise measurement (ST) -1 was conducted at the north end of the parking lot to capture noise generated from surrounding park activity. ST -2 was conducted near the parking lot to capture noise levels at the backyard of 882 Orange Blossom Way. ST -3 was conducted approximately 50 feet east of the existing pickleball courts while two games were underway on both monitoring days. ST -4 was conducted at the southern boundary of Osage Park to capture noise levels at the backyard of 535 El Capitan Drive. ST -5 was conducted near the west end of the basketball courts at Charlotte Wood Middle School. ST -6 (December 13, 2023, only) was conducted approximately 50 feet north of the northern most pickleball court while four players were playing a game with spectators. The sound level meter was equipped with a windscreen during measurements. The sound level meter used for noise monitoring (Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT) satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for Type 1 instrumentation. The sound level meter was set to "slow" response and "A" weighting (dBA) for measurements at ST -1 through ST -5. As discussed above, the sound level meter was set to "fast" response at ST -6. Sound level meters set to "slow" have a time constant of 1 second. This setting is commonly used to measure environmental noise sources. However, due to the fast rise and decay of the noise produced by the paddle hitting the pickleball, ST -6 was conducted using a "fast" meter response with a time constant of 125 milliseconds for a more conservative assessment of project noise impacts. The meter was field calibrated before and after the monitoring period. All measurements were at least five feet above the ground and away from reflective surfaces. Table 3 summarizes the results of the noise measurements on a typical weekend day and Table 4 summarizes the noise measurements taken during the week. Table 5 summarizes the noise measurement taken at ST -6 on Wednesday, December 13, 2023. Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the short-term noise measurements taken in the project vicinity. Page 5 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Table 3 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results - Saturday, July 8, 2023 Measurement Location LF„ Lmin 1 -mak Sample Times (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) ST -1 ST -2 Just north of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:51 — 9:06 a.m. 53.4 50.0 61.0 Middle of the parking lot 9:10 — 9:25 a.m. 53.3 49.7 60.4 for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. ST -3a Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 8:30 — 8:45 a.m. 58.0 55.4 61.9 ST -3b Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 10:03 — 10:18 a.m. 58.2 53.9 67.7 ST -4 Osage Park southern boundary near single- family residence, south of Pickleball courts. 9:27 — 9:42 a.m. 54.2 50.7 62.4 ST -5 Just west of the basketball courts at the Charlotte Wood Middle School. 9:46 — 10:01 a.m. 57.7 54.1 69.9 Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A -weighted decibel; L„, = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax= maximum instantaneous noise level Table 4 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Measurement Location L,„,, Lnian Sample Times Le„ (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) ST -1 ST -2 Just north of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. Middle of the parking lot for Pickleball courts near single-family residence. 8:05 — 8:20 a.m. 8:24 — 8:39 a.m. 50.2 45.0 50.3 64.9 46.7 64.6 ST -3 Approximately 50 feet east of the middle of the Pickleball courts. 9:13 — 9:28 a.m. 53.2 44.3 66.0 ST -4 Osage Park southern 8:53 — 9:08 a.m. 45.7 41.2 55.0 boundary near single - Page 6 family residence, south of Pickleball courts. Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study ST -5 Just west of the basketball courts at the Charlotte Wood Middle School. 9:30 — 9:45 a.m. 47.1 42.1 58.7 Leg = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A -weighted decibel; Lm;n = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Table 5 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results - Wednesday, December 13, 2023 Leq L.. L50 L25 1.8 L2 Lmax Measurement Location Sample Times (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) ST -6 Approximately 50 feet north of northern most pickleball court. 3:16 — 3:21 p.m. 60.5 52.0 55.0 56.7 62.3 69.3 82.5 Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A -weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Page 7 Figure 2 Aooroximate Noise Monitoring Locations Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Short Term Noise Measurements {ST) 0 75 150 N I t Feet Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and Its licensors R) 2024. Page 8 Noise Modeling Results Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study A property of sound is that it attenuates, or drops off, as the distance from the noise source increases. For a point source, such as pickleball courts, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source (Caltrans 2013). The project would generate noise at the nearby sensitive receptors and the attenuation rate is applied to estimate noise levels at the sensitive receptors. Shielding effects from buildings, terrain, or other barriers are conservatively not factored into the attenuation calculations for the purposes of this analysis. For the purposes of this analysis and based on information from the Town, the pickleball courts operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Recreational noise would continue to consist of noise from tennis and/or pickleball being played as under existing conditions, including noise from the ball hitting a racquet or paddle, noise from the ball bouncing off the court, noise from the ball hitting the chain link fence, and noise from players and spectators talking. To estimate project noise levels, the noise measurement results for ST -6, taken during a single game of pickleball with a "fast" meter response, were adjusted based on distance from the center of each proposed court to the nearby residences. A reasonable worst-case scenario was modeled assuming that all pickleball courts and tennis courts are used simultaneously. The estimated Lmax noise levels are based on the edge of the closest court to the nearest residential property line. In addition to the statistical Ln and Lmax criteria shown in Table 2, the estimated hourly Leg value at the residential 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. to assess against the Town's Ldn threshold. Attachment A includes the noise calculations. The results of modeling indicate that project operational recreational noise levels for all eight pickleball courts and all three tennis courts operating simultaneously would result in a noise level of up to 56 Ldn at the closest residential property line to the south and up to 56 Ldn at the closest residential property line to the west. This would be below the threshold of 60 Lan per Town of Danville General Plan Policy 27.09. Estimated project noise levels in comparison to the statistical Ln and Lmax thresholds are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Osage Park Pickleball Project Noise Levels Noise Metric Daytime Noise Standard' Project Noise Levels at Project Noise Levels at Residences to West2 Residences to South3 Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 70 65 60 55 50 72 67 60 55 53 76 67 60 55 53 Notes: Bold value = exceedance of noise standard. ' Includes a 5 dB penalty for impulsive noise. 2 Distance of 160 feet from edge of the closest court for Lmax. Distance of 110 feet from edge of the closest court for Lmax. Page 9 Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study As shown in Table 6, project operational noise levels are anticipated to exceed several of the exterior noise thresholds at residences to the south and west, if unmitigated. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project operational noise levels. Noise Mitigation The Town shall implement the following noise reduction measures: • Prior to project operation, affix sound blankets of a minimum 12 -foot height to the chain-link fences enclosing the courts along the project southern, western, and eastern court boundaries. The sound blankets shall be at least 1/8 -inch thick, continuous from grade to top of the blankets with no gaps, and have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28. • Prior to project operation, post signs at the pickleball court entrances with a list of allowable USA Pickleball "Quiet Category" -compliant paddles. Non -quiet paddles shall be prohibited. ■ Following project implementation, the Town shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to measure project operational noise levels to verify that noise levels at the closest residential property lines do not exceed the Town's thresholds. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, project operational noise would be conservatively reduced by at least 10 dBA. Attachment B contains product specifications for AcoustiFence, an example sound barrier product meeting the specifications of the mitigation measure. Table 7 shows the estimated mitigated project noise levels. As shown in Table 7, with sound blanket mitigation, project operational noise would not exceed significance thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant. Table 7 Osage Park Pickleball Project Mitigated Noise Levels Noise Metric Daytime Noise Standard' Project Noise Levels at Project Noise Levels at Residences to West? Residences to South3 Lmax L2 L8 L25 70 65 60 55 L50 50 62 57 50 45 43 66 57 50 45 43 Notes: Bold value = exceedance of noise standard. 1 Includes a 5 dB penalty for impulsive noise. 2 Distance of 160 feet from edge of the closest court for Lmax. Distance of 110 feet from edge of the closest court for Lmax. Reduced Court Alternative In addition to the proposed eight pickleball court project, a reduced six pickleball court alternative was evaluated. Figure 3 shows the six court alternative. Page 10 Figure 3 Six Court Project Alternative Layout PROPOSED CONCEPT eem.ni Diauntl:nc i:.c l...:.., ncwmn Knm.nn man hmi. NFlman *mkt, II • sMliro ea. Town of Danville Osage Park Pickleball Noise Study Noise modeling was conducted for the six court alternative using the same methods as for the proposed project. The results of modeling indicate that the six court alternative would reduce project noise levels by approximately 1 dBA at residences to the south and west and that the recommend mitigation would still be required. This concludes our operational noise impact assessment of the proposed project. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about this environmental noise impact assessment or its findings. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Josh Carman, INCE-USA Director Page 11 References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement ("TeNS") to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Office of Noise Control, 1977. Model Community Noise Control Ordinance. Crocker, Malcolm J. (Editor), 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471- 39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October. Danville, Town of, 2013. The Town of Danville 2030 General Plan. Danville, Town of. Danville, California Municipal Code. Available online: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/danvilleca/latest/danville ca/0-0-0-1. Accessed April 15, 2024. Lawrence E. Kinsler and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James, 1999. Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December. Attachment A Noise Modeling Calculations L50 Residences South L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 55 50 39.3 305 Pickleball Court 2 55 50 39.4 300 Pickleball Court 3 55 50 39.4 300 Pickleball Court 4 55 50 39.6 295 Pickleball Court 5 55 50 41.2 245 Pickleball Court 6 55 50 41.2 245 Pickleball Court 7 55 50 41.6 235 Pickleball Court 8 55 50 41.6 235 Tennis Court 1 55 50 44.9 160 Tennis Court 2 55 50 45.2 155 Tennis Court 3 55 50 45.5 150 Combined Noise Level 52.8 Residences West L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 55 50 43.6 185 Pickleball Court 2 55 50 42.3 215 Pickleball Court 3 55 50 41.2 245 Pickleball Court 4 55 50 40.2 275 Pickleball Court 5 55 50 44.1 175 Pickleball Court 6 55 50 42.7 205 Pickleball Court 7 55 50 41.6 235 Pickleball Court 8 55 50 40.5 265 Tennis Court 1 55 50 44.1 175 Tennis Court 2 55 50 42.1 220 Tennis Court 3 55 50 40.5 265 Combined Noise Level 52.7 L25 Residences South L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 56.7 50 41.0 305 Pickleball Court 2 56.7 50 41.1 300 Pickleball Court 3 56.7 50 41.1 300 Pickleball Court 4 56.7 50 41.3 295 Pickleball Court 5 56.7 50 42.9 245 Pickleball Court 6 56.7 50 42.9 245 Pickleball Court 7 56.7 50 43.3 235 Pickleball Court 8 56.7 50 43.3 235 Tennis Court 1 56.7 50 46.6 160 Tennis Court 2 56.7 50 46.9 155 Tennis Court 3 56.7 50 47.2 150 Combined Noise Level 54.5 Residences West L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 56.7 50 45.3 185 Pickleball Court 2 56.7 50 44.0 215 Pickleball Court 3 56.7 50 42.9 245 Pickleball Court 4 56.7 50 41.9 275 Pickleball Court 5 56.7 50 45.8 175 Pickleball Court 6 56.7 50 44.4 205 Pickleball Court 7 56.7 50 43.3 235 Pickleball Court 8 56.7 50 42.2 265 Tennis Court 1 56.7 50 45.8 175 Tennis Court 2 56.7 50 43.8 220 Tennis Court 3 56.7 50 42.2 265 Combined Noise Level 54.4 L8 Residences South L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 62.3 50 46.6 305 Pickleball Court 2 62.3 50 46.7 300 Pickleball Court 3 62.3 50 46.7 300 Pickleball Court 4 62.3 50 46.9 295 Pickleball Court 5 62.3 50 48.5 245 Pickleball Court 6 62.3 50 48.5 245 Pickleball Court 7 62.3 50 48.9 235 Pickleball Court 8 62.3 50 48.9 235 Tennis Court 1 62.3 50 52.2 160 Tennis Court 2 62.3 50 52.5 155 Tennis Court 3 62.3 50 52.8 150 Combined Noise Level 60.1 Residences West L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 62.3 50 50.9 185 Pickleball Court 2 62.3 50 49.6 215 Pickleball Court 3 62.3 50 48.5 245 Pickleball Court 4 62.3 50 47.5 275 Pickleball Court 5 62.3 50 51.4 175 Pickleball Court 6 62.3 50 50.0 205 Pickleball Court 7 62.3 50 48.9 235 Pickleball Court 8 62.3 50 47.8 265 Tennis Court 1 62.3 50 51.4 175 Tennis Court 2 62.3 50 49.4 220 Tennis Court 3 62.3 50 47.8 265 Combined Noise Level 60.0 L2 Residences South L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 69.3 50 53.6 305 Pickleball Court 2 69.3 50 53.7 300 Pickleball Court 3 69.3 50 53.7 300 Pickleball Court 4 69.3 50 53.9 295 Pickleball Court 5 69.3 50 55.5 245 Pickleball Court 6 69.3 50 55.5 245 Pickleball Court 7 69.3 50 55.9 235 Pickleball Court 8 69.3 50 55.9 235 Tennis Court 1 69.3 50 59.2 160 Tennis Court 2 69.3 50 59.5 155 Tennis Court 3 69.3 50 59.8 150 Combined Noise Level 67.1 Residences West L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 69.3 50 57.9 185 Pickleball Court 2 69.3 50 56.6 215 Pickleball Court 3 69.3 50 55.5 245 Pickleball Court 4 69.3 50 54.5 275 Pickleball Court 5 69.3 50 58.4 175 Pickleball Court 6 69.3 50 57.0 205 Pickleball Court 7 69.3 50 55.9 235 Pickleball Court 8 69.3 50 54.8 265 Tennis Court 1 69.3 50 58.4 175 Tennis Court 2 69.3 50 56.4 220 Tennis Court 3 69.3 50 54.8 265 Combined Noise Level 67.0 Lmax Residences South L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 50 Pickleball Court 2 50 Pickleball Court 3 50 Pickleball Court 4 50 Pickleball Court 5 50 Pickleball Court 6 50 Pickleball Court 7 50 Pickleball Court 8 50 Tennis Court 1 50 Tennis Court 2 50 Tennis Court 3 82.5 50 75.7 110 Combined Noise Level Residences West L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) Pickleball Court 1 50 Pickleball Court 2 50 Pickleball Court 3 50 Pickleball Court 4 50 Pickleball Court 5 50 Pickleball Court 6 50 Pickleball Court 7 50 Pickleball Court 8 50 Tennis Court 1 82.5 50 72.4 160 Tennis Court 2 50 Tennis Court 3 50 Combined Noise Level Leq Residences South Pickleball Court 1 Pickleball Court 2 Pickleball Court 3 Pickleball Court 4 Pickleball Court 5 Pickleball Court 6 Pickleball Court 7 Pickleball Court 8 Tennis Court 1 Tennis Court 2 Tennis Court 3 Combined Noise Level Residences West Pickleball Court 1 Pickleball Court 2 Pickleball Court 3 Pickleball Court 4 Pickleball Court 5 Pickleball Court 6 Pickleball Court 7 Pickleball Court 8 Tennis Court 1 Tennis Court 2 Tennis Court 3 Combined Noise Level L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) 60.5 50 44.8 305 60.5 50 44.9 300 60.5 50 44.9 300 60.5 50 45.1 295 60.5 50 46.7 245 60.5 50 46.7 245 60.5 50 47.1 235 60.5 50 47.1 235 60.5 50 50.4 160 60.5 50 50.7 155 60.5 50 51.0 150 58.3 L1 (dBA) Distance (ft) L2 (dBA) Distance to Sensitive Receptor (ft) 60.5 50 49.1 185 60.5 50 47.8 215 60.5 50 46.7 245 60.5 50 45.7 275 60.5 50 49.6 175 60.5 50 48.2 205 60.5 50 47.1 235 60.5 50 46.0 265 60.5 50 49.6 175 60.5 50 47.6 220 60.5 50 46.0 265 58.2 L() Energy+penalty 676082.9754 676082.9754 676082.9754 676082.9754 L L LO r— • cs) N- t- W co co O O O co CO CO ti ti ti (0 co co 676082.9754 676082.9754 2137962.09 2137962.09 CO 000000000<tNI' d' CO r r r r r r r r r CO LO LO N- I -- h- h- 0) 07 07 N CV CV CV N CO O O 00 CO CO CO CO M N- ti CO CO CO M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C). M M cO Cp Cp O Cp0 C7 00 Cp 00 00 06 co Cp 00 L. L. InLO LO Ln Lt) L() LO LOLO LO L() LO LO LO Q of J co co co co co co co co co co co co co co 00 co co co co co co co >, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0 coSco co co co co~CCOO CSO 0 CO CSO C W C m c 0 u V c d ▪ N ▪ H 7 0 O la .0 a) 42 .xC d c>, Lava 00 r r r M M O CO CO CO • CD CO M co. co. co. co. co. M co. co. co. co. 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O co. coco. 00 op co Cp co co Cp co co C 00 O o o O CO C Ca O O O 1000 0 Lo Ln co Lo Ln LO Ln CO LO Ln LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E) r r r .... r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N T 4 6 CO f 6.6 Cri CVCV N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 LO c J Energy+Penalty a' J 660693.448 660693.448 CO M MMM 00 00 00 00 660693.448 660693.448 CO M M CO MM 00 0 0 00 660693.448 2089296.131 r WO 0 0 0 0 00 0 O CO M 00 M(0M0r rrrrrrrr N N MMM000 O 00 (00 00 CO O M 000 N N N N N CV N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O N N N M o0 C0 O N CO C0 00 W O O M O O LO M 10 L0 LO Ln 10 Lf) 1 10 LC) L0 Ln Ln V d-'1-"4- "4 .1: .1. V d' r r r r r M M M M M co M M co M M > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) CO (fl (fl CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0000000000c, m co co co CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO WCO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0 CO (0 CO N N N N N N N N N N N 00 co 0 (O c0 00 00 00 a0 00 a0 101010 LO L0 L0 L0 LO L0 CO LO a' 0, J r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M 0) O O 000 000 000 000 N N N Cp O W Ln MM o O o o o 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 000 o O o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0000 0 0 00 00 000 0 000 0000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00_09 0 0 p0 0000999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L r r r == r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r •r 000000000000000000 0 00000 000000000000000000000000 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d EN- N M4 CO of O r N M O r N M 4 L() O C` CO r r r r r r r r N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r L (V m to e0 a, c 00 Attachment B Noise Barrier Product Specifications RcoUst/IbIo k® / 1quieting the world Product Data Sheet Product Name AcoustiFence® Noise Reducing Fences For Manufacturer Info: Contact: Acoustiblok, Inc. 6900 Interbay Boulevard Tampa, FL 33616 Call - (813) 980-1400 Fax - (813)849-6347 Email - sales@acoustiblok.com www.acoustiblok.com Product Description Basic Use AcoustiFence was originally developed by Acoustiblok, Inc. for noise isolation on offshore oil rigs, but has since proven successful in many other demanding outdoor settings, such as construction sites, commercial/industrial facilities, and residential communities. AcoustiFence Noise Reducing Fences AcoustiFence is a unique, heavy -mineral filled, barium free, viscoelastic acoustical material that is made in the U.S.A. Unlike fences or shrubs, this material does extraordinarily well in blocking direct sound, and a unique characteristic of the material sets it apart from other sound barriers when dealing with very low frequencies. oe 0, Or 05 04 03 0t a Q 4rlBslC$ickT.gxecga:�se (Mdependem cartitied lib) Sound Absorption (NRC) Frequency (Hz) Sound Absorption Test Results Benefits: • Effectively reduces exterior noise • Over 300 UL Classifications • Easy to install • Resistant to UV, dirt and water • Resistant to corrosion, mold and mildew Acoustiblok, Inc. 6900 Interbay Blvd. Tampa, FL 33616 (813) 980-1400 i9coq4jok® uithe world Product Data Sheet Product Name AcoustiFence® Noise Reducing Fences AcoustiFence Noise Reducing Fences continued... In frequencies of 5OHz and below, the heavy limp AcoustiFence material actually begins to vibrate from low frequency sound waves. In essence it is transforming these low frequency sound waves into mechanical movement and internal friction energy. Laboratory tests indicate that this transformation process inhibits these lower frequencies from penetrating AcoustiFence, reducing their level by over 60 percent relative to the human ear. In addition, AcoustiFence becomes an absorbent material in these frequencies with test results show an NRC (noise reduction coefficient) as high as 0.78 (with 1.00 being the max). As such it is clear that AcoustiFence not only reduces sound as a barrier, but also acts as an acoustical absorbent material in very low frequencies, as opposed to reflecting those frequencies back like most other barriers. It is worth noting that lead sheets (which are toxic) work in the same manner. Green AcoustiFence One of Acoustiblok's most popular products, designed as an advanced sound barrier that easily attaches to most types of fencing, is now available in a new green shade that easily blends into the environment. This makes it ideal for landscaping projects, residential home use and any outdoor applications where blending into the natural foliage is a concern. Green AcoustiFence has the same sound deadening properties and features as our original black AcoustiFence. In addition, this new version features advanced reinforced edging and stainless steel cable ties. Made and sourced in the USA, It comes in 6x30 foot sections and is one of the most effective first steps in reducing noise for industrial, commercial and residential projects. Acoustiblok, Inc. 16900 Interbay Blvd. Tampa, FL 33616 I (813) 9804400 RcoUst/IbIok® / / / 1quieting the world Product Data Sheet Product Name AcoustiFence® Noise Reducing Fences Sound Transmission Class (STC) Sound Transmission Class (STC) is a single number that represents the sound blocking capacity of a partition such as a wall or ceiling. STC numbers are often called out in architectural specifications, to assure that partitions will reduce noise levels adequately. For performance similar to laboratory test numbers, it is necessary to adhere closely to the construction materials and techniques used in the tested partition. STC is calculated by comparing the actual sound loss measured when 18 test frequencies pass through a partition, with fixed values for each STC level. The highest STC curve that the measured sound loss numbers fit under, determines the STC rating of the partition. STC calculations emphasize sound frequencies that match the human voice. A high STC partition will block the sound of human speech and block noise that interferes with human speech. To estimate high and low frequency performance, consult the Sound Transmission Loss graph included in STC test reports. Impact Insulation Class (IIC) measure transmitted impact noise and are specified for floor -ceiling assemblies only. Acoustical test reports for numerous wall and floor/ceiling designs are available from Acoustiblok on request. All our test data is taken directly from independent 3rd party laboratories under NVLAP certification. Sound Tranemission loss 40 30 20 10 0 (Independent certified lab) Sound Transmission Loss SFC Rating = 78 OITC Rating = 22 47r --So Ind Transmission Loss —•—STC Colltuin 1C Frequency (1-10 1111. 1111 Sound Transmission Loss Test Results Acoustiblok, Inc. I 6900 Interbay Blvd. Tampa, FL 33616 I (813) 980-1400 \\‘, i9cousti blot® Product Data Sheet Product Name AcoustiFence® Noise Reducing Fences Physical Properties • Barium free • Minimum STC 28 per ASTM E90-02 & ASTM E413-87 • Minimum sound attenuation 24 dBA @ 100Hz & 16dBA @ 40Hz • Size - 6 ft.(1.83m) x 30 ft.(9.14m) x 0.125 in. (.3mm) —180 ft2 (16.83m2) • Color - black or green • High UV resistance • Heat tolerance: 200°F (93°C) for 7 days, Tess than 1% shrinkage with no deformation. • Freezes at -40°F (-40°C). Do not unroll or flex frozen material. Properties not affected by freeze/thaw cycles. • No fungal or algal growth and no visible disfigurement, per ASTM D3273 and ASTM D3274 (rating=10) • Tensile Strength - min. 365 PSI • Weight per section: 185 lbs. (84Kg) Material Specifications — Part # "Acoustifence 6x30 Industrial" Acoustical Rating STC 28 / OITC 22 Size 6 ft. (1.83m) x 30 ft. (9. 14m) x 0.125 in .(3mm) 180 ft2 (16.72m2) Weight 185 lbs. (84Kg) Fastening Black brass grommets every 6 in. (152mm) along top edge with four grommets spaced along the bottom edge. Commonly installed horizontally. Color Black (This is an industnal possibility.) product and minor surface blemishes are a \\A Accuse/ biok® 6900 Interbay Blvd Tampa, Florida USR 33616 Telephone: (813)980-1440 www.Rcoustiblok.com soles@acoustiblok.com Information herein is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, accurate. However, since conditions of handling and use are beyond our control, we make no guarantee of results and assume no liability for damages incurred by the use of this material/product. All material/products may present unknown health hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards are that exist. Final determination of suitability of this material/product is the sole responsibility of the user. No representations or warranties, either expressed or implied, of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or any nature are made hereunder with respect to the information contained herein or the material/product to which the information refers. It is the responsibility of the user to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Specifications subject to change without notice. Acoustiblok, Inc. 1 6900 Interbay Blvd. Tampa, FL 33616 1 (813) 980-1400 June 2012 To Whom It May Concern: An Age 55 and Over Homeowner Community Association Country Roads RV Property Owners Association, Inc. recently purchased and installed Acoustifence® on the Pickleball court within our community. Since being installed only a few years ago, the Pickleball court has been considered a nuisance by some of the nearby residents because of the sound that the paddle makes when hitting the ball. Pickleball is a mixture of badminton and tennis however; the ball is a large type of wiffleball. The Board of Directors saw the need to keep the game because of its growing popularity and abate the noise for the neighboring homes. In researching on the internet, a Board member found the website for Acoustiblok, ® Inc. After much research the Board of Directors voted unanimously to purchase and install the Acoustifence®. Upon installation the neighboring homes noticed a considerable reduction of the repetitive ball Play. With our close proximity to Phoenix, Arizona, other communities have asked to see and test for themselves the Acoustifence® product. I have attached to our testimony the correspondence from Bill Booth, President of The USA Pickleball Association. TM I can attest that Acoustifence® material is not difficult to install, can be easily blended into the aesthetics particularly if you have existing wind screens and does abate any noise pollution Feel fr exper e. contact me personally if you have any questions about our Community's eliss. ood, CAAM® Commun .• ciation Manager 5707 East 32nd Street, #1127 • Yuma, Arizona 85365 • FAX (928) 344-0080 • Resort (928) 344-8910 Acoustifence Testing Date: April 17, 2012 Location: Country Roads RV Village in Yuma. Weather: Temperature was approximately 85 degrees, wind. 3-5mph. Testers: Bill Booth Harry Kirkpatrick (designated hitter) Picldeball Equipment: S -Type Composite Extreme Paddle. New Dura Fast 40 outdoor balls. The S -Type paddle was used because, of the paddles in our possession at the time, it was closest to the mid-range of paddles in the Grand Pickleball Club sound test. Sound Meter: Sper Scientific Digital Datalogging Sound Meter, model 840013 We also had an analog meter provided by SCG CAM. Tests were done with our digital meter because it has the capability of locking on the maximum reading during an interval. That made it easy to identify the maximum instantaneous sound caused by a paddle hit. Test Method: Tests were made with the tester attempting to hit the ball with maximum force for a worst-case scenario. Readings were recorded with the meter at 50 feet from the point of impact. In the first case, the reading was taken through the sound curtain next to the home at a point 42 feet from the curtain. The paddle was 8 feet inside the court for a total distance of 50 feet. The second set of readings was recorded inside the court at a distance of 50 feet from the point of impact. Test results through the sound curtain in decibels (dba): 59.2, 51.5, 55.9, 54.7, 57 Average: 56.7 Note: the reading that has been struck out above and the readings that have been struck out below were not included in the averages because the hitter recognized that he had mishit the ball resulting in a lower reading than for a clean hit. Test results for no sound curtain: 71.8,66.5,6 ,68.9,6- ,71.1,64.2 Average: 68.5 Homeowner Report: The homeowner with the most complaints and living closest to the courts reports a significant reduction in sound level. He said that his wife often does not realize that they are playing on that court. He is reserving final judgment until some of the snowbirds return in the fall. The homeowner was very friendly, assisted with the test, and monitored the results. The homeowner had a theory that the sound would be louder at his home if the hits were not so close to the sound curtain. Therefore, we made several hits at the other end of the court, 90 feet from the home. His theory did not prove correct with an average reading of 52.8 db. Ambient sound levels were in the range of 47-51 db if we waited for quiet periods when there was no aircraft noise, traffic noise, or voices. At other times, ambient noise significantly exceeded paddle noise. We have the homeowner's contact information if necessary. Level volume Change 1 Loudness +40dB ,j 16 t +30 dB ;? 8 1 +20 dB 4 I +10 dB 1 2.0 = double - +6 dB. ' 1.52 times +3 dB 1 1.23 times 10 dB - -1- 1.0 -3 dB0.816 times -6 dB `r 0.660 times 1 10 dB 0.5 = half -20 dB 0.25 1t -30 d6 0.125 -4O dB 0.0625 1 Log. quantity Psycho quantity it dB change I Loudness multipl. I Acoustifenceproduct page. Conclusion: As shown in the table on the left, a 10 db reduction in sound represents a 50% reduction in sound as perceived by the human ear*. With an average reduction of 11.8 decibels, it is likely that the Acoustifence will result in a at least a 50% reduction to the sound experienced by nearby homeowners. That could be the difference between annoying and just barely perceptible. *Chart Source: http://www.sengnielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLe vels.htm Photo: It is recommended that the product be installed on the inside of the court if the fence posts are outside the court as shown in the photo on the next page. CORRESPONDENCE The following electronic communication addressed to Town staff and/or Councilmembers was received at the Town of Danville offices at 500 La Gonda Way, Danville, CA 94526 regarding pickleball courts at Osage Station Park for the May21, 2024 Town Council meeting. Date: Thu 5/2/2024 11:44 AM buzzbk©sbcglobal.net Cell 415-203-6556 POB 809 Danville, CA 94526 To Whom it May Concern: My name is Bee Kilgore. I am writing this letter because I am leaving next week for New York where I will be playing a pickleball tournament so I can not be present to speak at the upcoming town council meeting. I feel compelled to write something as I spoke at the last meeting where I introduced myself as the #1 69 year old woman in the US in Pickleball, having won 3 National Championships, 4 US Open titles and won more than 20 tournaments nationwide over the last 2 years. I am now a pro level player, playing against 20 and 30 year olds and just finished 7th in Women's split aged pro doubles at the US Open in Naples Florida out of 30 teams. I have lived in Danville for over 25 years and have been a regular at Osage Park where I used to walk my dog. It was there that I discovered Pickleball. It came naturally to me having grown up being a Nationally ranked tennis player and as I got better at the game I found it more challenging to get court time at Osage to practice because of the lack of courts and so many people playing the sport. Subsequently, I now have to venture to Willow Pass in Concord (the courts there are not as nice as the 2 at Osage) and or pay to play at the Hub in Alameda or at Treasure Island, which is a 40 minute to an hour drive for me. Why can't the community come together and embrace putting in more pickleball courts for families, old (seniors) and young, to have a place to enjoy, meet people and play a social or competitive game? Osage to me is the perfect place in it's proximity. I understand the noise factor that the local homeowners are complaining about, BUT there are solutions to that problem with noise reduction screens and different balls that can be used. The parking will be no different given most people play in the morning when there is no activities on the fields, perhaps weekends will be overflow but I am sure that is manageable. So many communities around the country are putting in hundreds of courts, with over 36 million pickleball players now and growing. Why aren't we!? It's the fastest growing sport nationwide, and soon to be world wide. Having ONLY 2 designated pickleball courts in Danville to serve our beautiful town is just not adequate! I urge and beg you to push this through and get building these courts as soon as possible. I will be happy to help anyone wanting to learn and play the game when I am not traveling playing tournaments. A TT A C'T-TATPXTT 1-1 Thank you very much, Bee Kilgore From: Sheila McNulty <sheila.mcnulty@gmail.com> Date: May 11, 2024 at 4:06:16 PM PDT Subject: Objection to Osage Pickle Ball complex We live along Osage park. And we play pickleball. Yet we object to a new PB complex here because of the impacts we already feel from inadequate parking at the park. People park in front of our house and block our driveway at various times- school pick up, back to school night, baseball and soccer tournaments. Etc. When we want to take our garbage out, there is invariably someone parked waiting for their kids and blocking me from the street where my bins go. I have been almost run over multiple times while waking my dogs by people rushing to get into the park or leave. If you add a complex of courts here all of this will get worse. We pay over 10k a year in property taxes — for us to enjoy the park. And yet it being used by people from all over the East Bay. We are paying for their entertainment complex. Is that fair? When does it stop? Where does it stop? It should stop here. Vote no to expand the PB courts at Osage. And get someone out there to arrest all the dog owners with their dogs off leash. Best, Sheila From: Megan Roberts <megan m roberts@yahoo.com> Date: May 12, 2024 at 1:04:48 PM PDT Subject: Preserve Osage Hello! I have been a resident of Danville for 13 years. We have two children who are freshman at SRVHS. I have great concern about the green space being taken up by 8 pickleball courts. Over the years we have used Osage Park for many different reasons - sports, camps, picnics, celebrations, walking our dog, our children when they attended CWMS. There is a finite amount of green space at Osage. Putting in 8 more pickleball courts would not only add more traffic and noise but also greatly limit the grass areas that are not designated specifically for sports (ie: baseball, soccer). Sycamore Park seems like a much better location for pickleball courts. It doesn't affect homeowners and there's plenty of parking and green space. Thank you for listening to my thoughts and taking them into consideration. Sincerely, Megan Roberts CarlDTaibl@gmail.com 602-549-4607 cell I support the Osage pickleball court expansion. I've lived in Danville since 1999, two miles from Osage. I am 65 and still working; I try to play at lunch daily. I have played since 2019 when my son took me to play for Father's Day; he's evolved into a professional pickleball player and coach. Pickleball has strengthened our relationship, we talk about it every day. During his last visit we played at Osage and spent an hour teaching two newcomers how to play. So this is my first point, community and demographics. Osage is a COMMUNITY park, not a neighborhood park. Pickleball has become a daily social outlet for 150 community users (evidenced by an app called "Danville Dinkers"). Here's some facts: • Average age is over 50, many are retired. • Average daily use is over 50,150 weekly o Compared to tennis, pickleball's utilization of resources is much higher. • Were you aware 33% of players are female? • And more families are starting to play. Why is this important? Here are a few reasons: • There's strong demand - peak time waits between games are 20 minutes. I've seen 20 people waiting for a court (2 courts = 8 players). o But 8 courts accommodate all attendees and also allows warm-up o The first game for players usually requires several minutes of warm-up • It's a low-cost activity for families and those on a fixed income o - That is until you impose surprise restrictions such as a "soft paddle." • Let's talk about that, specifically Mitigation Measure #2. o Excerpt reads, "...post signs at the pickleball court entrances with a list of allowable USA Pickleball "Quiet Category" -compliant paddles...." § Pickleball paddles and technology change monthly § Tonight please Google this, you'll find only ONE such paddle exists § Whomever drafted this either did not research this with a pickleball professional or was influenced by one of the neighbors as the only USAPA approved soft paddle on the market, The OWL, costs $169 + $15 tax + $15 ship = $200 each. A family of 4 could not use basic paddles bought locally, they would have to pay $800 to order online. Multiply that by150 users - it's the equivalent of a $30,000 tax. My guidance is to mitigate in steps. Do Mitigation Measure 1 then evaluate. Don't place a financial burden on users. Compare this with other Osage rules, every third dog is off -leash - an example of how local neighbors comply. While I do respect the neighbors' point of view, though most are exaggerated, as Leonard Nimoy once said, "The needs of the many �. _ _ the few." outweigh the needs of 1Cw. Thank you for your time, looking forward to speaking in person on May 21st. Regards, Carl Taibl From: Lisa Tom <lisashonn@gmail.com> Date: May 12, 2024 at 11:55:00 PM PDT Subject: Osage Proposed Pickleball courts Hello, As a longtime Danville resident who lives within the vicinity of Osage park I would like to express my concern around the proposed pickleball courts at Osage Park. The noise, congestion and traffic is unwanted and I would urge you to please find a different location further from a residential neighborhood. The traffic is already bad enough with school drop- offs and pickups. Please don't add to this. There is even a risk of lowering home values! Osage has been a peaceful and belovedpark for my family since I movedhere as a child 30 years ago. Please don't ruin this. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Lisa Tom From: Jeane Walden <jeanewalden@glnail.com> Date: May 11, 2024 at 7:11:54 PM PDT Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Pickleball Courts at Osage Park Near Charlotte Wood Middle School Dear Town Councils, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed installation of Pickleball courts near Charlotte Wood Middle School, where my son attends. While I appreciate the initiative to introduce recreational facilities in our community, I strongly oppose the placement of Pickleball courts in such close, proximity to the middle school for several reasons. Firstly, Pickleball can be a noisy sport, especially during peak playing hours. The sound of balls hitting paddles and the occasional shouts of players could disrupt the learning environment within the school, potentially affecting students' concentration and academic performance. Moreover, safety is a significant concern. With the increased traffic and activity around the Pickleball courts, there is a higher risk of accidents involving students walking to and from school or participating in outdoor activities during breaks. Additionally, the presence of Pickleball courts could attract a demographic that may not always prioritize the safety and well-being of middle school students. This raises concerns about potential interactions between students and unfamiliar individuals frequenting the area. Furthermore, the visual impact of the courts on the surrounding landscape should be taken into account. Introducing large recreational structures in close proximity to a school could detract from the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood and affect property values. Instead of placing the Pickleball courts near the middle school, I would suggest exploring alternative locations that are more suitable in terms of noise levels, safety considerations, and community impact. Collaborating with local residents and stakeholders to identify such locations could lead to a solution that benefits the entire community without compromising the well-being of our students. Thank you for considering my concerns. I urge you to take them into account when making decisions regarding the placement of recreational facilities in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jeane Walden CALVIN WONG <cajamwong©aol.com> Pickleball discussion at the May 21st 5:00 PM Town Council Regular meeting I want to express my support for the expansion of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. As a resident of Danville for over 40 years, I have seen the town move Charlotte Wood Middle School from downtown to its present location. at Osage Park, open up Camino Ramon to provide access to San Ramon, and build new parks throughout the town to provide recreational opportunities for the growing population. All these projects required some concessions from our neighbors for the greater good of the community. The building of the existing two courts at Osage took away a court from the tennis players, but in turn, it has provided considerable benefits to so many new pickleball players, including many former and current tennis players. Pickleball is a sport that can be enjoyed by anyone willing to try it. People with a sports background can become proficient at the game almost immediately, but it is even more amazing when you see someone without a sports background or is less athletic, develop the skills to play with others more gifted. Pickleball is such a fun game and can be learned so quickly that even multiple generations of a family can play together competitively. Please support this great activity by expanding the courts at Osage. Thank you, Calvin Wong Ann Beaton annlbeaton@gmail.com Pickleball courts I support building more pickleball courts at Osage. Thank you Ann Beaton From: Taegen Clary <taegenclary@gmail.com> Date: May 12, 2024 at 7:50:23 AM PDT Subject: Osage pickleball courts Hello town council members, My name is Taegen Clary and I I live at 1161 Mustang Drive, Danville. I have nothing against pickleball and play it from time to time, but ANYTHING that increases traffic in the Osage area should be HEAVILY considered when making the decision about these courts. I have been hit on my bike by a car in one of the iron horse cross walks, luckily it was at very low speed. My son has almost been hit a few times and there is already too much traffic on El Capitan with many drivers completely disregarding the 25 mph speed limit. I've called Danville PD a couple times to report egregious speeding. I am pretty sure we don't need more traffic going in and out of Osage/Charlotte Wood. I have one child at Charlotte Wood and one at John Baldwin and the thought of more, random people parking at the schools, which I heard was proposed, sounds totally ill advised. Increasing the odds of bad actors getting near a school seems really foolish to me. Lastly, if I were one of the homeowners that lives right by the courts, I would be even more against this. The noise is going to totally suck for them and if you all have not asked yourselves if you would be OK with 8 pickleball ball courts being installed right behind your house, then you need to. You know you wouldn't want it or be OK with it and would hope someone could find a better location. My hope is that you all can make that happen. Thanks for reading and hopefully the concept of "do unto others what you would want done to you" can guide these decisions. Best, Taegen Clary From: Nate Hughes <nathan.s.hughes@gmail.com> Date: May 11, 2024 at 5:01:02 PM PDT Subject: Pickleball at Osage Hello, I'm a resident in the Greenbrook neighborhood and have been fortunate to live here since 2015. My children and I have enjoyed Osage for years - the playground, sports fields, and peaceful nature of the park. I'm strongly opposed to adding eight pickleball courts to the park. The noise pollution and massive increase of park users would materially change the peaceful setting. I would recommend finding a more suitable location - closer to a main thoroughfare, perhaps at Sycamore Valley Park. If that is not possible, converting or repainting the existing tennis courts could be a workable solution as my HOA had done for our tennis courts. I won't be able to attend the meeting later this month and wanted my opinion shared. Regards, Nate Hughes 67 Meese Cir, Danville S Craig and Ruth Isom ruthcraigisom@sbcglobal.net Support Pickleball Expansion - May 21st Meeting I strongly support the proposed pickleball court expansion at Osage Park. Retired now for 5 years and living less than 10 minutes away from the current courts, pickleball has become an important exercise and social outlet for me. The rapid growth of this sport suggests that pickleball has emerged as a very important activity for others like me, a terrific incentive to get off my recliner and seek new friendships in an active setting. As such, we are quite short facilities at this time, and Osage offers an ideal location with the space to expand pickleball capacity. I think all we players want to respect the privacy and solitude of adjacent homeowners, and I support measures to reduce the noise associated with pickleball activity. I will gladly buy new equipment as the technology evolves to mute the sound of pickleball impact. I hope you will also support this proposed expansion at Osage Park. Thank you. Craig Isom (925) 735-6954 From: Edgar M <emagana@gmail.com> Date: May 13, 2024 at 9:29:47 AM PDT Subject: Osage Pickleball - Tottally Oppose I want to take this opportunity to share my total disagreement about the plan to construct eight pickleball courts at Osage Park. This is going to increase traffic, create a lot more noise and reduce the space for our kids to play and hang around. Please, stop this no -sense plan! Edgar Magana, PhD PTA President - John Baldwin Elementary School From: Jonah Pelayo jonahpelayo@yahoo.com Date: May 13, 2024 at 9:02 am Subject: Pickleball Court Expansion at Osage Park 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. Hello Marie Sunseri, I would like to advocate for more pickleball courts at Osage Park for the meeting on May 21st at 5pm. My name is Jonah Pelayo, and I think we need more pickleball courts because of the amount of wait time there is especially in the mornings. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Thank you, Jonah Pelayo (925)413-6982 From: Stephen Blick <sblick42@yahoo.com> Date: May 13, 2024 at 4:28 pm Subject: Osage Park Pickleball Courtd We are Danville residents and think Osage Park is outstanding. As a super senior citizen I've retired from tennis and now play pickleball. Permitting additional of pickleball courts would enhance the Osage Park experience and provide a great athletic environment for the expanding fan base of the game. My concern is that a very few people might negatively impact and prevent the project from going forward, I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Our home number is 925 984-2597. Steve Blick From: Robert Gates robertgates68@outlook.com Date: May 13, 2024 at 5:01 pm Subject: May 21. Meeting for Danville pickle courts Hi town of Danville. We frequently play and encourage Danville to follow through on more pickle courts at Osage. pickle court access is getting harder and harder as the sport grows in popularity. 99 pc of town supports more pickle. Please add the four of us Danville residents as strong supporters for more courts Kind regards, Robert and Caroline 333 del amigo Bruce and Jutta 795 Danville Blvd +1 925 389 4885 From: Tom Caldwell tmcwell@aol.com Date: May 14,2024 7:45 am Good morning to you. My name is Tom Caldwell and I am resident of Danville, ( 202 Glen Meadow Ct 94526) and I writing this to you in adamant support for the addition of more courts at Osage Station Park. I play several times a week, currently mostly at Rudgear park in Walnut Creek, they have 8 courts and getting on to play is easy. I wish there could stay and play in Danville. It costs me additional time, fuel and thus money to travel to Rudgear, and while not a hardship just an inconvenience and harder on the environment. I would play more often and drive much less if there were more courts at Osage Station. I am fully aware of the challenges for the neighbors there based on traffic, noise and congestion. There are many ways to help support the neighbors needs by regulated hours -- no lights, closed days, noise baffling materials on the fencing, etc. Please count this email as a very strong endorsement for the 6 new courts proposed at Osage Station Park. Regards, Tom Caldwell The Legacy Group Thomas Caldwell 925-997-0602 mobile 925-265-0180 fax From: Brian Katko <brianjkatko@grnail.com> Date: May 13, 2024 at 9:38:13 PM PDT Subject: NO NO NO on Osage Park pickleball courts 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. As a daily user of Osage Park I strongly oppose additional pickleball courts. There is enough activity in this small park already. Parking lots are frequently full and additional traffic presents a danger to pedestrians, adults and school children alike. There are definitely other more suitable places available in Danville. Regardless of any previous positive actions I will be voting repeatedly in perpetuity to replace any of you who support this as will the other three registered voters at the Danville address I call home. Brian Katko 517-290-3188 From: ajosephnic@aol.com Date: May 13, 2024 at 7:30 Subject: Pickleball Court Expansion at Osage Park, 5/21/24 Town Council Meeting My name is Andrea Joseph -Nickels, residing at 312 Merrilee Place Danville. I've lived here for 34+years. I support the Pickleball Court expansion project at Osage Park. I support the expansion because: • A school's privilege to border a beautiful community park for use in its daily activities (which we all support of course), does not give privilege to a few to repurpose the park (I believe the tagline is "preserve" which is a misnomer). I support the Town of Danville in continuing to fulfill Osage Park's purpose as a multi - recreational use, community park for all Danville residents. • Traffic is a non -issue. I learned within my first month of living here - and that was a long time ago - that one avoids certain roads and areas during the times students and parents are going to and from school. This includes Charlotte Wood, John Baldwin and San Ramon Valley High. Additionally, I've noticed the recent addition of speed bumps and traffic violation signs, etc. within the vicinity of the school. • Osage has definitely brought together a group of people to form a beautiful, pickleball community. We love Osage as much as the next person. We hope we are not pushed away, and can continue to enjoy pickleball at Osage. Thank you, Andrea From: Mick Marshall <moritzmarshall@hotmail.com> Date: 5/13/20247:30 pm Subject: Pickleball I whole hardily support the addition of pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Mick Marshall 925-588-8729 Member of the Rossmoor and Walnut Creek Pickleball clubs From: Tim Collins <tim@timcollins.com> Date: 5/13/2024 7:07 pm Pickleball discussion - May 21st Town Council meeting This email is for the Pickleball discussion at the May 21st 5:00 PM Town Council Regular meeting. I support expanding Pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. My support is for the following reasons: • Pickleball has had a profoundly positive impact on my life and many others. • There is a significant shortage of public Pickleball courts in Danville. Wait times to play at Osage are frequently 20+ minutes. • Osage Station Park is centrally located and easily accessible via the Iron Horse Trail. Riding a beach cruiser or other bike to publicly open Pickleball courts further enhances our marvelous quality of life in Danville! Eight total Pickleball courts at Osage will be a huge boon to the people of Danville. I am eternally grateful for the extensive effort put forth by the Town Council and all those involved. Let's make this expansion a reality. Thank you. Tim Collins 124 W Linda Mesa Ave Danville From: mark.bowman@drba.org Date: May 13, 2024 at 4:59:32 PM PDT Subject: Pickleball I am opposed to expanding the number of pickle ball courts at Osage Station Park. I support pickleball at a much better location at Sycamore Park. Please vote NO on expanding pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Sincerely, Mark Bowman 1382 Brookside Drive Danville, CA 94526 935-980-4566 From: Cecilia Kohl cmkoh113@gmail.com Date: May 14, 2024 2:48 pm I support the proposed Pickleball Courts at Osage Park for all ages. Please consider sound mitigation curtains if the subsequent neighbors have issues with sound. Supporting Osage Station Park, my own children have grown up playing on the playground, playing soccer and/or baseball there, which are noisy also. But, understand if one chooses to live near an open space like Osage Park = THERE WILL BE NOISE! ! ! ! Please relay this message to City Council members - I support enhancing this park with another option of enjoyment. Cece Kohl From: TJ Dupont tjsdupont@gmail.com Date: May 14, 2024 7:34pm Subject: Support for new pickleball courts expansion Hello, My name is TJ Dupont. I have been a resident of Danville for 18 years. Part of what I love about Danville is the community and activities the town has to offer. My kids and I have participated in many of the programs the town has to offer. My kids grew up playing soccer at the many fields including Osage. I have taken tennis lessons throughout the years and have loved it. Now that my body is older and cannot take the harshness of what tennis does to my body, I started to play pickleball. What this game has done for me and my mental and physical health is beyond words. Pickleball has also led me to meet so many people in Danville and nearby communities which I otherwise would have never had met. Danvilles is about community. It's about family. It's about the wellbeing of our people. Pickleball only enhances all of this. We do not have enough courts as this sport has grown in popularity. A lot of people have now left Osage due to the wait times including myself. I have to drive 20+ minutes out of my community in order to find more courts without the wait times. I don't want to have to wait 40 minutes to play one 10-15 minute game. I don't want to have to drive 20+ minutes out of my community to play. I am paying some hefty taxes here in Danville so I can enjoy amenities the town should be offering to its people. I am for the expansion. Please meet the demand of the population and tax payers. Thank you kindly, TJ Dupont 43 Weber P1 Danville, CA 94526 Mobile: 925-915-0158 FROM: Ron Fong & Barbara Fong Date: 5/15/2024 RE: May 21, 2024 Town Council Regular Meeting (Osage Pickleball expansion project) My wife and I both support adding additional pickleball courts at Osage Station Park I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife (Barbara Fong). My name is Ron Fong, I am 74 years old and have lived in Danville for over 37 years. First I would like to thank all the members of the Town Council and members of the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission for all their hard work to provide our town with quality recreation facilities at our neighborhood and community parks. Over the years I have seen how our Town's parks have evolved to meet the ever changing recreational needs of our town's population (age, demographics, recreation trends..). My wife and I have been playing Pickleball since 2016 and are very fortunate to be within walking distance to the Pickleball courts at Osage Station Park. Playing Pickleball has been incorporated into our routines for physical exercise and outdoor socialization. I have been closely following the discussions related to the project which would expand the pickleball facility at Osage Station Park. I realize there is a very strong opposition spearheaded by just a few home owners near the park who are appealing the Dec 2023 Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission's approval of the project. Since sound generated from playing pickleball is the major complaint by the opposition, I respect the Town's decision to incorporate acoustic sound blankets to the project as a mitigation measure to reduce sound to an acceptable level that does not violate Town ordinances. With this mitigation measure incorporated into the Osage Pickleball expansion project , the Town Council should approve the project and allow the project to move forward to the next phases. On behalf of myself and my wife, we support adding additional pickleball courts at Osage Station Park Thank you, Ron Fong From: Patty Spinrod <spinpspin@aol.com> Date: May 14, 2024 8:18 pm Pickleball discussion at the May 21st 5:00 PM Town Council My name is Patty Spinrod. I am in support of expanding the Pickleball Courts at Osage Station Park. It's a win win for the city. Pickleball will attract players who will then potentially dine and shop in Danville. Regards Patty Spinrod ATTACHMENT H