Pickleball
Subcommittee
Report on the PB Trial
Park and Recreation Committee
September 4, 2024
Analysis of Trial Success
Whether there is sufficient interest to warrant continued PB at the Park: reviewing reservations through August; both PB surveys; and comments from PB players.
Any detrimental effects to preclude PB, such as noise or elimination of tennis if PB is played on a present tennis court.
In addition, consideration of possible changes as to when, how and where PB is played should it continue at the Park.
2 PB Interest
• Last 4 months usage by reservations
• Approximately 47 different players reserved a court
• 405 hours, approximately 44% of availability (9 AM -12 PM every day, 4-7 PM Tu/Thu) • For August, 117 hours by 27 players (57% by 6 players and 79% by 11 players) • There can be 2 – 4 people on a court, totaling 230 – 460 PB hours a month • Survey Results
• 77 respondents said they played PB at the Park (50 Atherton residents) • 246 residents in the 1st survey before the trial reported playing PB • Several people remarked they would play if more times opened up or “drop-in” play were allowed
• Conclusion
• Sufficient interest to continue PB at the Park
3 Detrimental Effects of PB: Noise Issue
• No complaints received by Town staff from neighbors, etc. • Baffling has helped
• Survey responses
• 18 noise complaints (10 Atherton) in response to Q10 about opinion on stripping, layout, noise • 8 noise complaints in response to Q16 requesting “additional feedback” • No response by neighbors
• Town ordinance of 60 dBa not exceeded, but designed for continuous noise, not PB sporadic sounds • Measurement devices installed for the trial measure sound peaks at intervals but do not measure PB sporadic sounds
• Noise nationwide has been a PB problem
• Noise is not linear and each 3 dBa increase is double the sound energy and each 10 dba doubles the effect • Cycles/sec or pitch is much higher for PB than tennis • Circus Club had to move courts and mandate soft paddles after complaints even with no dBa violation and court baffling
• Noise issue should be monitored as it may increase with increased play and “drop-in” with players waiting and making noise along with players
4 Effect on Tennis
• Courts 1 and 6 are used by tennis keyholders, with Player Capital using 3 or 4 courts, including a clay court of limited use • Survey: 56 played tennis not PB (32 Atherton residents) • 75% “generally negative” about the shared court
• 96% resisted conversion of a court to PB
• 10% could allow continued joint use
• 86% wanted a permanent PB court built elsewhere
• Very few complaints that PB precluded tennis, probably given the limited PB hours and other tennis court availability
• Conclusions
• Trial does not show a meaningful loss of tennis opportunities • A separate PB court would eliminate any conflict
5 Possible Alterations in PB Availability
• Same shared Court 1 with 8 AM-12 PM daily and 4-7 PM Tu/Thu • Only about 12 days when no AM times available over 7 months • No unavailability during the 4-7 PM Tu/Thu time
• Some PB players have requested more availability and “drop in” • Might extend PB to all day Sunday and/or Saturday 4-7 PM • Drop-in: 26% of PB players want only reservations and 49% want mostly reservations; 74% want some drop-in
• Trial of drop-in on Sunday afternoon on one PB court? • Could allow PB/Tennis on Court 1 any time not reserved at certain times • Monitor drop-ins with keys: sign-in sheet, guests and sign as to hours • Monitor noise given survey complaints about “yelling and banter,” ball noise and talking from PB generally; may require soft paddles 6 Separate PB Court or Permanent
Conversion of a Tennis Court
• 74 % survey respondents favored a permanent PB Court
• 42% favored elsewhere in the Park (tennis players preference) • 42% converting a tennis court (PB players preference) • 16 % continue joint use
• Average PB use of 2 hours a day per PB court does not mandate either type of permanent court
• PB might fund a new court, like tennis players did
• Some have suggested fewer courts for PC
• The PC usage and the original contract based on 4 playable courts during the week and 3 on weekend (one or both days)
• Clay court of limited use and could be converted to a hard court • Any change might affect lessons and children’s summer camps 7 Summary and Recommendations
• Sufficient interest to continue PB
• Not sufficient evidence of detriments to preclude PB, with appropriate limitations and integration with tennis usage • Best solution
• Short-term: Continue shared use, with increased PB hours • Sunday all day, with afternoon drop-in on one PB court • Monitor noise levels from increased use
• Any keyholder can drop in along with up to 3 companions • Review after 1-year trial
• Long term: Entertain separate PB court
• Could be funded by donors if Council approves and a suitable location can be identified, such as the practice wall located by the RR tracks; consider reconstructing the clay court 8