455 EAST CALAVERAS BOULEVARD, MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035-5479 GENERAL INFORMATION: 408-586-3005, WWW.MILPITAS.GOV
3/19/2024
Agenda Item No. 17
ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
Item 17 – Consider Approval of a Permanent Pickleball Site and Provide Feeback on Future Programming Plan
- Resident Petition
- Letters from the Public
CITY OF MILPITAS
From: Solomon Tan
To: City Manager Office; Suzanne Guzzetta; Matt Cano; Renee Lorentzen; Ned Thomas Cc: Hon Lien; Anthony Phan; Garry Barbadillo
Subject: Pickleball & Tennis courts usage at Hall Memorial Park (including wait time) Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 8:10:24 AM
Attachments: Pickleball&TennisCourtUsage&WaitTime.pdf
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
This email originated from outside the organization. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report suspicious messages to the IT Helpdesk.
Good Morning,
Last evening at the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Commission Meeting, I had the privilege to talk to many of you about court usage and wait time for Pickleball and Tennis at Hall Memorial Park. I would like to share the following spreadsheet (2 pages) with each one of you. Please share it with others whom I do not have email contacts and Mr. Balsbaugh.
I believe the data you see in this spreadsheet are self-explanatory, but here are a few key points I would like to mention.
The spreadsheet is broken up into three sections. First section contains current courts utilization of both sports. Second section shows the numbers if another tennis court was converted into 3 pickleball courts.
The third and final section contains the numbers if only 1 tennis court was allocated for the pickleball sport. Each section is separate into 3 equal parts based on an average pickleball game of 15, 20, and 25 minutes. As for the columns, a few key areas to look at are:
1. Number of possible set[s] within an hour timeframe - (column D)
2. Assuming all courts contain 4 players, number of players per hour - (column E)
3. The time players will need to wait for their chance to get into respective courts when none is available - (column F)
4. Total players count for both sports weekdays from 6pm until 10pm (4 hours max) - (column G) Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this spreadsheet.
Yours Sincerely,
Sol Tan
2 The Milpitas Pickleball Club extends our warm invitation to all city council members to visit Hall Park during evenings or weekends. Witnessing the vibrant and amiable pickleball community first hand might provide invaluable insights. In fact, I suggest coming prepared to play; the sport tends to be very fun and easy to play for men and women of all ages.
And, I am an Engage Pickleball paddle brand ambassador, I have plenty demo paddles available for loan should any be required.
In conclusion, I wish to express my gratitude for the City's support of the pickleball community at Hall and Gill Park so far. However, the sport's popularity has outgrown the current 6 courts at Hall. I urge your continued support for our community and ensuring an equitable distribution of city resources by providing the necessary funding and facilities to meet resident demand.
Thank you for dedicating your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Van Leong
From: Sol Tan
To: City Clerk
Subject: Regarding Upcoming City Council Discussion tomorrow (8/19) Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 2:55:12 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
This email originated from outside the organization. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report suspicious messages to the IT Helpdesk.
Good Afternoon,
I have received a notification about the upcoming meeting to be held tomorrow evening. Thanks so much for sending
the notification to me.
Unfortunately, I’m away and would not be able to make it to the meeting. I do hope and trust that everyone involved in making this decision treats both pickleball and tennis fairly.
Thanks,
Sol
Send from myPhone!
1 Suzanne Guzzetta
From: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Subject: Urgent: Support Needed for Pickleball Court Upgrades in Milpitas From: Jess Sasano
Date: January 3, 2024 at 9:29:25 AM PST
To: Carmen Montano <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Subject: Urgent: Support Needed for Pickleball Court Upgrades in Milpitas Dear Carmen:
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Jess sasano , and I am a member of the Milpitas Pickleball Club. I am writing to you today to bring attention to the pressing need for upgraded pickleball courts in Milpitas and to seek your continued support for the pickleball community.
As of now, the Milpitas Pickleball Club boasts over 180 subscribed members, 600 individuals in the Milpitas Pickleball Facebook group, and over 400 participants in the Hall Milpitas Pickleball WhatsApp group and yet, we only have a total of 8 dedicated pickleball cour
ts in our city. This scarcity becomes particularly evident during peak times, with up to 40+ players standing around, waiting to play on the 6 pickleball courts (converted from 2 tennis courts) at Hall Park.
The growth of pickleball in Milpitas is undeniable, and we are grateful for the exist ing courts; however, the current facilities are unable to accommodate the increasing demand. We believe that investing in upgraded courts is essential to support the current and projected growth of pickleball in our community.
We would like to extend an invitation to all city council members to visit Hall Park during evenings or weekends, particularly du
ring peak times. This firsthand experience will
provide you with valuable insights into the challenges we face daily. It is much more informative than any online survey and reduces the potential for misinformation.
Your continued support is crucial in ensuring that our community has the necessary facilities to enjoy picklebal
l. We kindly request that you consider allocating resources and funding for the enhancement of pickleball courts in Milpitas.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We appreciate your dedication to the well‐being and recreational needs of our community.
Sincerely,
Jess
Sent from my iPhone
1 Suzanne Guzzetta
Subject: FW: Written comment for City Council meeting
From: Kimberly Vo
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 12:30 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Written comment for City Council meeting
[Aside: Hi, I'm not sure how this works, but saw that the public may submit a comment for public forum. In case it is required, this is Kimberly Vo]
"Hi, I've lived in Milpitas for basically my whole life, and in my current home for the past 20 years now.
In this time, I've never needed to complain about anything. However, I'd like to air my grievances regarding my current state of living in my neighborhood--as you might have guessed--pickleball at Hall Park.
Everyday, I come home from work, and my family has to plan who is leaving/coming when in order to park our cars and save room on the driveway, lest we end up parking one street down. I struggle a lot from migraines, and want to rest in my room in the quiet after a long day of work. This is delightfully accompanied by, "POP pop pop POP pop". This is allowed and near constant from practically 7am - 10pm. Everyday, the sound does not stop until lights are off, which can be 10:04, 10:06, etc. I hope others understand how distressing this is, and that I shouldn't need to blast noise or be obligated to wear earplugs in my home until 10PM. It goes without saying that by living at a park, we expect noise, however the pitch and frequency of pickleball is clearly a different form.
Unfortunately, the city has not prioritized residents' feedback, forming focus groups around pickleball and tennis players, as if the inconvenience of driving an extra 20 minutes to play elsewhere is more important than enjoying peace in your home during the day. We simply got the same survey everyone else got, a survey in my opinion which did not ask any productive questions, and still felt framed around accommodating pickleball. One question was, "should we convert open space to more parking". I don't even know where there is open space in the first place, making me question whether the park was even scoped out. Would we pave over trees and nature (seems antithetical to environmental goals) to create more parking? Or by arguments of tennis courts being replaced due to "inactivity", I notice the playgrounds aren't used often, especially between 8AM - 3PM, perhaps those should be converted as well? Would we haphazardly decide to spend hundreds of thousands to build a parking lot, driving in more people to a park that cannot sustain that? I hope it's not unreasonable to ask that we are actually thinking through our problems and solutions, with proper research and data to back it up.
I have a lot more reasons as well as data collected to substantiate why I feel pickleball is a bane and even against public safety in this neighborhood, as well as feedback on how things have been handled. I plan to share more when that is composed, even though no one asked and it ends up in the void--but I wanted to share a brief piece now, in fear the city will move forward with a unilateral decision anyway, without truly listening to residents. I believe in everyone having a right to enjoy hobbies, and have no qualms around pickleball the sport itself, but I believe the city needs to address the need by developing a reasonable and well thought out alternative. At the end of the day, to enjoy your hobby is a privilege; I would hope enjoying peace in your home in Milpitas is a right. I respect
2 that everyone involved is trying their best, so I'm hoping we can move forward collaboratively and positively."
[Aside: I hope this is not too long, I am not familiar with how things work but expect it to fit within a 3 minute limit if that is the criteria, unless I need to present in person. Please let me know if this works]
Thank you
StatementagainstHallParkPermanent
PickleballCourtsProposal
TheneighborsofHallParkhavenotbeenfairlytakenintoconsiderationthroughoutthe pickleballpilotprogram,whichisalsore flectedintherecommendedproposal.
Theexistingproposalfocusesonprovidingdatathatpickleballisinhighdemand,andhowthe recreationservicesofMilpitasshouldscaleincomparisontoneighboringsites.Thisdistracts fromthefactthatitlacksanysuf
ficientjustificationforwhyHallParkistheappropriate
locationtohousethesecourts,andminimizestheexistingconcerns.
Thisdocumentcallsout flawsandfallaciesintheproposal,howitusesselectivelychosendata toshapeconclusionsandneglectscounterpoints,andprovidesthereasonsforwhypickleball courtsdonotbelongatHallPark.
NEIGHBORHOODCONCERNS
Webelievetheneighborhoodconcernswesurfaced,despitelimitedopportunityto,were simplydismissed.Insteadofexploringthelegitimacyoftheseconcerns,theproposal condensesallfeedbackandconcernsfromneighborsinto4sentences,outofa6page proposal.
“HallParkneighborshavearticulatedmixedresponsesduringthePilotprogramandsubsequent communitymeetingsandsurveystopickleballatHallPark.Neighborsreportedenjoyingtheincreased useofthepark’scourtsystemwiththearrivalofpickleball.Theyalsoexpressedconcernsoverincreases intraffic,illegalparking,littering,andnoise.Additionally,neighborsofferedtheperspectivethattheHall Parksiteamenitiescouldnotsustainadditionalcourts,ontopofthealreadyexistingsix(6)temporary courtsatthesitenow.”
Theproposalstatesthatneighborshad“mixedresponses,”whichimpliesacomparablemixof neighborswhoopposedthecourtsandneighborswho,instead,enjoyed“increaseduseofthe park’scourtsystemwiththearrivalofpickleball.”Someissueswiththispointinclude:
● 40householdsintheneighborhoodsignedapetitiontoopposepermanent pickleballcourts.
○ ThiscomprisesthemajorityofLaHondaDriveandHerminaStreet,whoarethe directlyimpactedneighbors.
● Therewasnowaytoaccuratelyidentifyfeedbackasfroma“neighbor.”Therewereno targetedsurveysforneighbors,andwe
filledoutthesameonesasthegeneral
population.Thesesurveysreliedonself-reportinglocation,throughmeansofproviding one's“nearestintersection.”Tosaythatthereareneighborswhoenjoyedthearrivalof pickleball,inordertocontrastfromandminimizetheconcernsactualimmediate neighborshave,is deceivingandmisleading,giventhisfact.
○ Becausethereisnocitation,thisstatementcouldbelabelinganindividuala neighboriftheyjustreported“walking”tothecourts,and thereisastrong distinctionbetweena“neighbor”wholivesinfrontofCurtnerSchool,and onewholivesdirectlyacrossthestreetfromthecourts.
Unfortunatelysincethatwastheextentofcoverageonourconcerns,wewanttoexpoundon someofthesepointshere:
“TRAFFICANDILLEGALPARKING”
Seealso:AppendixItemA.
Interestingly,theproposalneglectstoexplicitlycallout“parking”itselfasaconcern.Some facts:
● Thereareonly10designatedparkingspotsinthelotbesidethepark. ● Onlyoneresidentialstreetleadsintothepark.
● Only~400ftononesideoftheparkbordersastreet.
Somecommonconcernsheldbyneighborsregardingparking,illegalornot,andtraf ficinclude:
● Neighborsareunabletoparkbytheirhomes,especiallyaftergettinghomefromwork ● Peopleparkingandblockingpartsofdriveways
● Increasedriskoffenderbendersduetoincreasedtraf ficflowandthestateofthe drivers.
● Illegalparkingwithcarsfacingtheoppositedirectionofthestreet. ● Driverspullinghardu-turnsfromtheirspots,whichisahazardduetoblindspots. ● 3-ptturnsinpeople’sdriveways
● Carsarefrequentlyparkedtightlyandendupparkedoncornersofthestreet,whichis moreprohibitiveandcausesissueswithsafelydriving/createsblindspots.
Neighborshavemanyconcernswithsafetyduetothiscongestion,whichhasnotbeentaken intoaccount. Somemoreseriousconcernsinclude:
● Kidsrunningintothestreet,andarehardertoseefromgreaterblindspots ● Animalsinthestreet
● Emergencies:from firetrucks/ambulancesreachingyou,orneedingtoquicklymovein anemergency
Theparkingcurrently fillsupLaHondacompletely,andhasextendedfurtherandfurtherdown Hermina.Soccerseasonhasnotstartedupyeteither,whichpreviously filledthesidewalks.
Unfortunatelynoanalysisorexplanationsareprovidedintheproposalforwhythisisn’tavalid concernfromneighbors.Somephotographicmaterialshavealsobeenpreviouslyshared,but wereunviewed.(Linkisalsoavailableat:bit.ly/hall-mem-vid) NOISE
FromMilpitasCityOrdinances
TheCouncil
findsanddeclaresthatexcessivesoundandexcessivevibrationcausedbysoundareahazardtopublic healthandwelfare,safetyandthequalityoflifeinresidentialareas;thatpersonslivinginresidentialareasare entitledtothereasonableuseandenjoymentoftheirpropertywithoutexposuretoexcessivesoundandvibration; thateveryone'srighttouseandenjoytheirpropertymustbeexercisedwithrespecttotherightoftheirneighborto useandenjoytheirproperty;thattheregulationofexcessivesoundandvibrationinresidentialareasoftheCityof Milpitasisnecessarytoaccomplishthispurpose.
(Ord.No.196.11,§2,6/3/14;Ord.196(part),6/7/77)
Onanordinaryday,HallParkneighborsarefacedwithnearconstantpoppingsoundsfrom pickleball.Thesestartfromasearlyas7AMandendpast10PM.Noisesare,obviously, intensi
fiedwhenneighborsopentheirwindows,whichisarighttheyshouldbeentitledtodo.
Especiallyasthenightsgetwarmer,andPG&Ecostsrise,neighborsshouldbeabletoleave theirwindowopenatnightwithoutworryingaboutgettingwokenupat7AMbyacacophony.
Unfortunatelyitgrowsincreasinglydif
ficulttoattainstill,quietperiodsforanyextendedperiod
oftimeduringwakinghours.
Toprovidesomerelationpoints,atbestthenoiseisakintoaleakingfaucetwhichcannotbe controlled.Asitmovestotheextreme,ittakesonmoreofa firecrackernature.
Theonlymentionon“duediligence”withregardstonoiseintheproposalisseenhere:
AfterthePilotlaunch,staffconductedbi-monthlyassessmentsincludingcourtutilizationand decibel readings,throughAugust2023.
Thisseemstoimplythatduetoconductionofdecibelreadings,therearenoissueswithnoise.
However,webelievethatstaff-conducteddecibelreadingsthroughAugust2023,cannotbe usedasasourceoftruthtojustifythatnoiseiswithinreasonforthefollowingreasons:
● Inef
ficiencyofPoint-in-timeMeasurements: Singledecibelreadingsmightnotcapture thedynamicnatureofnoise,potentiallymissingpeaklevelsorvariationsthroughout theday.
○ Withanassumed24datapoints,there’snotenoughdatatore
flectstatistical
significance.Thereisnotenoughdatatore flect:
■ Timeofday
■ Busyness
■ Skilllevel/kindsofpeopleplaying,competitiveplayingdiffersgreatly from“lightly”hittingtheballaround
■ Whatotherambientnoiseispresent
■ Weather
○ Onealternativewayoftensuggestedtoassesssoundissurveyingpeoplewho livednearby;however,thatwasnotdone.
● ThesereadingswereconductedthroughAugust2023,which missesthe7months betweenthenandnow .Thisisnecessarytocalloutduetogrowthinplayership.
MeasurementsfromAug2022-Dec2022,wherefewarestilldiscoveringthepilotis goingtobedifferentcomparedtoentirelypackedcourts,andmorechatterfromloud crowds.
● Lackstrustandreliabilitycomparedtothird-partyanalysiswithacousticengineers However,mostlargely:decibels do notaccountforsoundfrequencyandhertz. ● Pickleballsoundsexistinthe mostsensitiverange,usuallybetween1,000and2,000 Hertz,withthepitchalongsidegarbagetruckbackupbeepers–whichwerechosentobe themostannoyingfrequency.
○ Sinceit’sinthesensitiverange,wehearitbetterandfromfurtherawaythan othergameswithasoftballandracquet,suchastennis.
○ Whenpeoplefallasleeptowhitenoiseorsleepmusic,themaxismaybe500 hertz.Pickleballisdoubleorsometimesquadrupletheamountoffrequency generatedabovethetolerablerangeofsomeonetryingtosleep.
■ Fallingasleepatnightandbeingstartledbysuddenandexcessivenoise canpresentgreaterhealthissuesdowntheroad,becauseit
unnecessarilytriggersthe fightor flightresponse,whichisinnateinall animals.
Studiesshowhowtheseimpulsive,annoyingsoundscontributetoanindividual’shealth–the stresscanleadtothedevelopmentofcardiovascularillness:
NIHStudyon“TheCardiovascularEffectsofNoise”:
“Long-termorshort-termenvironmentalnoisecancausestressreactions/noiseannoyancereactions,mediatedby disturbancesofsleep,communication,andactivitytogetherwiththeassociatedcognitiveandemotionalreactions.
Theseaffecttheautonomic(sympathetic)andendocrinesystems(e.g.,elevatedcatecholamineandcortisone concentrations)andmayasaresultleadtochangesinlipidmetabolism,glucosemetabolism,andbloodpressure regulationthatthencontributetoanincreasedriskofcardiovascularillness.Thenoise-relatedstressisattributedan intermediaryroleinthedevelopmentofnoise-inducedcardiovasculardisease,i.e.,theeffectsofnoiseonhealthare determinedpartlybytheextenttowhichthelistenerperceivesthenoiseasannoying.[1]” JournalofEnvironmentalPsychologyon“Acutestresseffectsofimpulsivenoiseduring mentalwork”:
Impulsivesounds,likeadrippingfaucet,annoypeoplemuchmorethansteady-statesounds,suchasanair conditionerrunning.Impulsivesoundsalsocausestressanddecreasedperformance,aspeoplesimply finditharder
toworkandrelaxwhentheykeepgettinginterruptedbyimpulsivesounds.[1] CaliforniaNoiseControlAct:
Statesthatexcessivenoiseisaserioushazardtopublichealthandwelfareandthatexposuretocertainlevelsof noisecanresultinphysiological,psychological,andeconomicdamage.Italsorecognizesthatcontinuousand increasingbombardmentofnoiseexistsinurban,suburban,andruralareas.ThisactdeclaresthattheStateof Californiahastheresponsibilitytoprotectthehealthandwelfareofitscitizensbythecontrol,prevention,and abatementofnoise.
Therecommendationincludes“sounddampeningwindscreens/padding,”however,itishardto trustatthispointthatproperassessmentshaveorwouldbedonetoensuretheyhaveany impact.
PILOTPROGRAM
INITIALLAUNCH
Theproposalstatesthefollowinginitsbackground:
ThePilotlaunchedinAugust2022andincludedimprovementstothephysicalprogramsites,onsite storageofnets,newlyestablishedprogramhoursonsharedcourts,anddevelopmentofavolunteer programthat engagedvolunteersresponsibleforsettingupandremovingnetsfortheprogram.
Implementingnewprogramsand/ornewtypesofusesatexistingparkfacilitiesisathoughtfulprocess butoftenchallengingwhentryingto addresstheinterestsofresidentparkamenityusers,park neighbors,andresidentsatlarge.Communitiesthroughoutthecountryarefacingasimilarscenarioas Milpitas,tryingtobalancethewell-foundeddesireonthepartofplayerstoenjoypickleballwhile supportingresidents’interestsinothersports,and parkneighborqualityoflife.
SignswerepostedatbothPilotsitesinformingusersofthenewPilotprogram,impendingsiteworkand futureprogramhoursandrules.Thesesignsalsoinvitedandencouragedallcourtplayerstoattenda communitymeetingonJune16,2022,toreviewthePilotprogram,sharedcourtsrules,andaddressany concernsusersmighthave.Approximately30-40peopleattendedthismeeting.
Herearesomeissueswiththeexecutionoftheprogram,whichquestionitsintegrity:
● Despitethe“end”ofthepilot,nothinghaschangedin7months,anduserscontinueto playpickleball.Only1surveywascreatedduringthe1yearperiodofthepilot.No meetingswerescheduleduntilaftertheexpectedenddate.
● Theabovesharesthattheprogram“engagedvolunteersresponsibleforsettingupand removingnetsfortheprogram.”Thiswaslongabandoned,aspickleballnetshavebeen setupasifpermanent.
● Theabovesuggestsaddressinginterestsofparkneighborsorconsideringpark neighborqualityoflife.Notably,thereisnocommunicationastohowthatwasdone, norisitre
flectedwithintheproposal.
○ Laststatementabovesharesthatsignswerepostedatthesites,andthat attemptsweremadetoaddressconcernsfromusers.However,noattempts weremadetocommunicatetoneighborsaheadoftime.
MEETINGANDSURVEYS
Theproposalsharesthemeetingsorganizedaftertheendofthepilotprogram.
ThefirstcommunitymeetingwasheldonSeptember25,2023.AttheOctober2,2023,Parks, RecreationandCulturalResourcesCommission(PRCRC)meeting,staffpresentedaPilotprogram overviewandsoughtfeedbackonapotentialpermanentpickleballcourtssiteatHallParkTennis Courts.TheHallParkCourtstennisplayersattendedthismeetingandrequestedasecondcommunity surveyandcommunitymeetingbeconductedastheygenerallyfeltunawareoftheopportunityto participateinthecommunityprocess.InresponsetotheserequestsandPRCRCsupportofthe additionaloutreach,staffscheduledandbeganworkingona1)focusgroupmeeting,2)second communitysurvey,and3)secondcommunitymeeting.Afocusgroupmeetingwithequalrepresentation fromTennisandPickleballplayerswasheldonNovember16,2023.Feedbackfromthefocusgroup providedinsightfrombothgroupsontheirperspectivesoncourtsafety,access,andneedsoftheir players.Thefocusgroupalsoprovidedfeedbackonquestionsthatshouldbeaskedonthe2nd communitysurvey.
Theaforementionedself-explainsitsinsuf ficiencyofmeansandmethodologyforgathering feedback.
● Continuedemphasison“pickleball”vs“tennis”
○ Creationofafocusgroupwith“equalrepresentation”fromtennisandpickleball players.
● Lacksanyacknowledgementofattemptstoengagewithneighbors,sincetheydidnot exist
○ Neighborswerelargelyunawareofthediscourseandearlymeetings Itappearsresultsofsurveys,etc.wereproducedwithaselectivebias,astheywere designedmainlywithpickleballersinmind,andtargetedtowardsthem. Therewereno attemptsmadetoseekhonestfeedbackthatwascontrarytotheframeworkthatwasalready established.Ifsurveysandmeetingsareconstructedtoaskwhetherusersenjoythecourts,or wantmorecourts,thenthosearetheresponsestheyaregoingtoreceive.
SURVEY#2
ResultsfromthisSurvey#2refl ectingresidentresponseswerereviewedattheFebruary8,2024, communitymeeting.Survey#2garneredvaluablefeedbackon,butnotlimitedto,averageageofthe surveytaker,transportationmodesofparkvisitors,rateofvisitationtotennisandpickleballcourtsin Milpitas,waittimes,peakusetimes,impactstotheneighborhood,andreceptivenesstochangestoHall Courtuseschangingorrevertingbacktosingleuse,andsharedusebetweentennisandpickleball.
Someissueswiththedesignofthesurveyinclude:
● Thissurveywassentwiththeframing“Convertsomeorallofthecourts” ○ Ifasurveyistrulymeanttogatherfeedback,thereshouldn’tbeasuggested outcomeprior
○ Thisindicatesthattheseweretheplannedoptionsbeforeproperfeedbackwas solicited
● “Convertallthecourts”waspresentedasanoption,despitehavingnobasisinreality, andonlylatermentionedtobe“unlikely.”
● Aspreviouslymentioned,surveytakersself-reportedtheirresidencybyspecifying wheretheyliveusinganearestintersection.
○ Askingforanearestintersectionwasconfusingandunclear.
○ ThereisnowaytoaccuratelydetermineaMilpitasresident,despiteclaimsthat “suspiciouscharacters”were filteredout.
■ Onlypotentialidenti fierfromthesurveycouldbeanIPaddress,which doesnotnecessarilyre flectsomeone’slocation.
● Duetothelackofvalidation,userscouldattempttotakethesurveymultipletimes ● Questionsdidnotpresentanopportunitytoprovideusefulfeedback. ○ Asnoted,“age”and“waittimes”wereasked,whichisorthogonaltofeedback regardingpickleballcourtsatHallPark.
■ TherewerefewquestionsthatevenappliedtoHallParkneighbors aimingtosharefeedback.
○ Surveyhadone“Leaveadditionalcomments”inputattheend,butwas mistakenlysetupasonelineinput.Individualswouldhavetowritetheir feedbacksomewhereelsebeforecopy/pastingitbackin,ormostlikelybe deterredfromleavingfeedback,thoughitisunclearwhatcommentswereused for.
COMMUNITYMEETING#3
Acommunitymeetingwasheld,wheretheagendaconsistedof:reviewingsurveyresults, hearingfeedback,andadotexercise.
ThoughmostofthesurveywasirrelevanttoHallPark,anattemptwasmadetocalloutthe responsesto“impactinneighborhoodin2021vs2023.”Itwasclaimedthatpeoplereported therewasachange/impact,butnosigni
ficantchangesonagranularlevelforthingssuchas
noise,littering,etc. However,thisoverlooksthefactthatlikely90%ofpickleballusers, especiallythelargepercentagecomingfromothercities,mostde finitelydidnotvisitthis parkpriorto2021. Thereforetheirvoteswereeffectiveindilutingtheseresults,andmakingit useless.Thiscontributestotheconcernsofhowtrustworthytheclaimsintheproposalare.
DOTEXERCISE
AttheFebruary8,2024,communitymeeting,staffreviewedtheabovestaffrecommendationandfuture programmingideaswiththepublic,aspartofapotentialfuturestaffrecommendation.Somealternate siteoptionsthatwereincludedinSurveys#1and#2werealsoavailableforfeedback,throughadot exercisethatevening.Belowisacompletelistofthestaffrecommendationandalternatesiteoptions listedinorderoffavorableresponsesgatheredfromsurveyresultsandtheFebruary8community meeting:
StaffRecommendation: Createadualusecourtsystemwithtwo(2)tenniscourtsandsix(6)pickleball courts,includingafencebetweenthetwosportcourtareasforsafety,andsounddampening windscreens/padding.
AlternateOption1: ResurfaceHallCourtsandretain4tennisCourts(noPickleball) AlternateOption3: ResurfaceHallCourtsandcreate12pickleballcourts(notennis) *option2removed/notfocusedonhereasitwasnotsignificant
TheexerciseprovidedMilpitasresidentswithB/Y/Rstickersandnon-residentswith2green stickers.B/Y/Rweremeanttorepresent1st,2nd,3rdchoices.
The“dotexercise”issurprisinglycitedasajusti ficationforthestaffrecommendation,despite manyperceivedde ficiencies:
● Attributedvotingpowertoarandomsubsetofpeoplewhowerefreetoshowup ○ Estimated40%ofthesepeoplewerenotMilpitasresidents
○ Neighborshadnowaytoassumetherewouldbeanactualvoteatthemeeting ● Itwascommunicatedthatthiswas“justanexercise,”whichaffectshowpeoplechoose tobehave/vote.Typically,practicetestsaren’tassigned,onlytolaterbeputonyour grade.
● Votingoptionsalreadypresentedabias,sinceoneislabeled“StaffRecommendation”, whileothersarelabeled“Alternate.”
● Incorporatingarankedvotewas
flawedtobeginwith,givenpeoples’strong
preferencesinonedirectionortheother.Withonly4options,itwasunreasonableto expectpeoplecould finda first,second,andthirdoptiontheywanted,considering retaining4tenniscourtsandcreating12pickleballcourtsareonoppositespectrums. ○ Thisledtoconfusionforpeople,whodidn’twanttovoteoncertainoptions.
Wetookphotosafterthesession(excludedOption2,whichhadverylownumbers),withthe followingcounts.SeeAppendixItemB
Totalcount Blue Yellow Red Green
StaffRec 20 39 11 68
Option1 35 22 38 8
Option2
Option3 33 7 22 39
Ofnote:
● SignificantGreen,akanon-resident,votesonpickleballoptions.
Itisunclearwhatweightingwasusedtoproducetheorderoffavorabilitypresentedinthe proposal,howeverherewecanrunsomescenarios:
Weightedscaleof3,2,1,0-sinceweassumednon-residentsshouldnothaveasayinthese matters,andshouldbedemandingthesamefromtheircitygovernmentsinstead. 3,2,1,0 Blue Yellow Red Green Score
StaffRec 60 78 11 0 149
Option1 105 44 38 0 187
Option2 0 0 0 0 0
Option3 99 14 22 0 135
UponlearningthatSanJoseimplementsa5to1weightforresidentsvs.non-residents,hereis anexampleofaweightedscaleof5,4,3,1.Itisdif ficulttoestablishareasonableweighting duetotherankedoptions.
5,4,3,1 Blue Yellow Red Green Score
StaffRec 100 156 33 68 357
Option1 175 88 114 8 385
Option2 0 0 0 0 0
Option3 165 28 66 39 298
Onlya4,3,2,1scalegetsclosesttotherankingfromtheproposal. 4,3,2,1 Blue Yellow Red Green Score
StaffRec 80 117 22 68 287
Option1 140 66 76 8 290
Option2 0 0 0 0 0
Option3 132 21 44 39 236
Takingthe39householdsinthepetitionwhodidnotvoteinthedotexercise,assuminga conservative3personaveragehouseholdsize(total117people),andgivingthemeachjust1 bluedotforoption1wouldlooklike:
Blue Yellow Red Green Score
StaffRec 80 117 22 68 287
Option1 608 66 76 8 758
Option2 0 0 0 0 0
Option3 132 21 44 39 236
Altogether,itisnotworthanalyzingthisdatasetfurther,sincebydesign,itlackssoundness.
CONCLUSION
Wehopedthattheproposalwouldbecreatedwithourbestinterestsinmind,evenafter feelingthatthepilotprogramneglectedtoprioritizeneighborsinanyform.Unfortunately,after spendingdaysgatheringdataandputtingtogetherfeedback,aswellasactuallydoingthe worktoreachouttoneighbors, weweredisappointedtoseeourlivesreducedto4 sentences.Itishardtoseewhatneighborscouldhavedonetobere flectedasmorethanan
afterthought.
Theproposalpresentsjusti ficationsderivedfromselectivelychosendata,effectivelyshaping conclusionsthatalignwiththepreferencesoftherespondents.Thisistheselectivebiasing mentioned,asthe datacollectedprimarilyre flectstheperspectivesofthoseadvocatingfor theproposal.
Theproposal neglectstoexplorethecounterarguments presentedtothem,limitingthe depthofanalysisandfailingtoprovideacomprehensiveunderstandingoftheissue,resulting inaone-sidedperspective.
TheHallParkcommunityiscomposedoflongtermresidents.Onaverage,oftheresidents whosignedthepetition,wehavelivedinthiscommunityfor~22yrs.Weurgethecityto puttheneedsofitsresidents first,bywhatactuallyaffectspeoplethemost.Webelieve decisionsshouldn’tcomedowntowhoeverhastheloudestvoice.Themakeupofthis neighborhoodconsistsofalargeelderlypopulation,andlargeimmigrantandnon-native Englishspeakers.Residentsshouldfeelsecurethattheircityislookingoutforthem,as theymayhavefeltinthepastdecadestheylivedintheirhomes,andnotbetaken advantageofbyaninabilitytobeasproactive.
C.COMPARISONWITHOTHERPUBLICPARKS
ProvidedisahighlevelcomparisonbetweenHallParkandotherpublicparkswithpickleball courts.
455 EAST CALAVERAS BOULEVARD, MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035-5479 GENERAL INFORMATION: 408-586-3005, WWW.MILPITAS.GOV
3/19/2024
Agenda Item No. 17
ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
Item 17 – Letters from the Public
CITY OF MILPITAS
From: John Q Public
To: Carmen Montano; Evelyn Chua; Anthony Phan; Hon Lien; Garry Barbadillo; Ned Thomas; City Manager Office; Suzanne Guzzetta
Subject: [URGENT PLEASE READ] DO NOT APPROVE Agenda Item #17 on CIP 5116 MARCH 19, 2024 - MULTIPLE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST/ETHICS VIOLATIONS INVOLVING MILPITAS PRCRC COMMISSIONER Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 4:04:27 PM
Attachments: Catchment-Report-Milpitas-2023-11-15-15348.pdf CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
This email originated from outside the organization. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report suspicious messages to the IT Helpdesk.
Dear Milpitas City Council,
This letter serves as notification and report to the City Council of observed Conflict of Interest violations involving a current and sitting Milpitas volunteer commissioner. Allen Roy Thomas, who currently serves on the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources Commission (PRCRC), has been present and voted for all active business items on the commission agenda dating back to October 2023. Mr. Thomas, who is an active Pickleball player and an outspoken advocate for Pickleball expansion within the City, most notably leaving public comments on the website of the online publication Milpitas Beat in support of a permanent location for Pickeball in Milpitas. Nevertheless, Mr. Thomas was found to have engaged in official misconduct in three known separate instances in the execution of his duties as volunteer commissioner. This letter demands the City to investigate Mr. Thomas’ conduct and halt any and all passages of PRCRC agenda items to be presented to the City Council until Mr. Thomas’ conduct can be held fully accountable through formal and open inquiries.
Incident #1: October 2, 2023 Commission Meeting
Over 100 tennis players stormed the commission meeting, demanding a detailed survey on the Hall Memorial Park Pickleball Pilot program. Commissioner Thomas participated and passed all active commission agenda relating to Pickleball and did not recuse himself. He was also seen after the meeting in the City Hall parking lot engaged in ex parte communication with Stephen Balsbaugh, then-president of the Milpitas Pickleball Club for over an hour after the conclusion of the commission meeting before deparing City Hall shortly before 10:00pm the same evening.
Incident #2: February 5, 2024 Commission Meeting
A member of the general public made comments during the Public Forum period asking the PRCRC commission to carefully review the legitimacy and authenticity of the Second Pickleball Survey results, which ran from December 2023 to January 2024 conducted by the City’s Recreation and Community Services. The speaker indicated the survey operated through Surveymonkey.com
contained a security vulnerability, allowing survey
participants to submit multiple and theoretically unlimited anonymous responses by merely engaging in a web browser’s “private mode” web surfing feature. This feature, available on nearly all major web browsers, prevents the Surveymonkey’s programming to track unique Internet Protocol (IP) addresses tracing back to the user, allowing one user to engage in “ballot stuffing” for the purposes of entering multiple responses favorable to the user. When the commission meeting concluded and the parties retreated outside to the City Hall lobby, Mr.
Thomas approached this speaker and attempted to challenge the speaker on what he believes to be a false claim.
Mr. Thomas alleged when he attempted to return back to the beginning of the survey after first and only submission, he was prevented from doing so. That individual, in the presence of another Milpitas city resident, PRCRC Commissioner Voltaire Montemayor, and Student Commissioner Jimmy Nguyen, demonstrated to Mr.
Thomas how “private mode” functions on a web browser with his cellular phone. Mr. Thomas was shocked by this revelation and quickly excused himself for the evening, quickly realizing he inadvertently confessed to subitting multiple survey responses. This is problematic given the City Council previously received emails from residents who warned the Council on the same exact issue, and a sitting PRCRC commissioner effectively admitted to accessing the Second Pickleball Survey with the possibility of attempting multiple submissions in favor of Pickleball expansion. Even if Mr. Thomas did not make any successful attempts to engage in multiple survey submissions, his decisions to merely look into the possibility clearly tainted the integrity of the survey process.
Survey participants who wished to inflate the demand for Pickleball in the City and more tech-savvy than Mr.
Thomas would have no challenges entering fraudulent submissions.
Incident #3: March 11, 2024 Commission Meeting
Renee Lorentzen, Director of Recreation and Community Services, invited Michael Silveira, Design & Construction CIP Manager, to present the upcoming CIP projects requiring the PRCRC to pass its budget to fund project priorities. This is identified as Business Item 9a. Proposed 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Included in the presentation contains CIP Project 5116 Pickleball Improvements. The same member of the pubic who spoke at the February commission meeting spoke again during Public Forum period inquiring funding mechanism for Project 5116, as Mr. Silveira had indicated it is currently unfunded even though Project 5116 promises $200,000 allocation to Pickleball conversion at Hall Memorial Park over two fiscal years. The Public Forum speaker indicated any project that cannot be immediately funded should not pass. Director Lorentzen countered by indicating Project 5116 would simply be funded through a sales tax increase. At the conclusion of Mr. Silveira’s presentation, the commission, including Commissioner Thomas, voted unanimously to pass the CIP budget. Mr. Thomas’ conduct, once again, poses significant issues, and perhaps even more egregious than the February incident. The Milpitas Commissioner Handbook published by the City clearly states the Conflict of Interest guidelines all volunteer commissioners must abide by. Particularly, please refer to page 22 of the Commissioner Handbook for the City Council’s reference:
4. Conflict of Interest.
a. No public official or employee, whether paid or unpaid, shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial interest or other personal
interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his/her official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair his/her independence of judgment or action in the performance of said official duties. Personal, as distinguished from financial interests, includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships, personal friendships, fraternal relationships or close business or political associations.
Please recognize this letter is not setting out to make baseless accusations against Mr. Thomas’ conduct. These incidents were observed in plain sight in public view, as all Milpitas commission meetings are required to be conducted in full view of the public to meet the public ordinance requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Moreover, the City’s official advisory to closely adhere to the guidelines set forth by the State of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Mr. Thomas had multiple opportunities to recuse himself on any PRCRC agenda pertaining to Pickleball expansion and budget approval, and he willfully chose to ignore his ethical obligations and proceeded to participate in violation of the City’s Conflict of Interest guidelines. Similar issues regarding Mr. Thomas’ apparent bias was personally brought to the attention of Vice Mayor Evelyn Chua at the Hall Park Community Meeting on February 8, 2024. Vice Mayor Chua handed out her business cards to City residents who play tennis at Hall Memorial Park and opposes any modification or removal of tennis courts. She was and still is acutely aware of the conflict between both sides, as she is credited as the individual responsible for initiating the Pickleball Pilot Program. But there is no doubt Pickleball support City residents do not outpace non- residents who come to Hall Memorial and create traffic and congestion issues in the neigorhood. The February Community Meeting confirms this fact, as most of the non-residents were the driving force behind Pickeball accmodations. This is also true with the current board officers of the Milpitas Pickleball Club, as both the President Jessica Le, Vice President Steve Pham, and other board officers Rajesh Nair and Ariel Flandez are not Milpitas residents.
In addition to the tennis players opposing the passing of Project 5116, many residents are wondering about the funding assurances for Project 5113 Minor Sports Courts Rehabilitation Program. As the title suggests, the project only funds minor repairs of several sport courts, including marginal repairs of the tennis courts at Robert Browne Park and Dixon Landing Park. However, nothing in the CIP made assurances of additional funding to repair the extensive court damages particularly at Dixon Landing. Under Project 5116, CIP Manager Mr. Silviera indicated at the March PRCRC meeting 5116 is only receiving $135,000 for FY 23-24, with no guarantees of future funding. The tennis courts continue to receive deprioritization over other sports and activities, including Pickleball.
City residents who are avid tennis players are astonished by the blatant disregard for tennis players and their general public safety in using substandard court surfaces. Bear in mind that Kinetica, a tech company specializing in data collection through Artificial Intelligence and Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) have found over 100,000 tennis players frequent all Milpitas tennis courts annually, even before the COVID-19 Pandemic (see attachent).
Despite its ongoing popularity, the City willfully neglected critical repairs of tennis courts throughout the City, particularly at Hall Memorial and Dixon Landing.
Lastly, Director Lorentzen was made aware of a petition signed by over 40 residents who reside on residential streets adjacent to Hall Memorial Park. The neighbors have vehemently protested the excessive noise, parking congestion, excessive trash, vandalism, open alcohol consumption and illicit drug use on park premises, stray animals killed by speeding vehicles on tight residential streets, and repeated violations of park curfews that required Milpitas Police Department to enforce on numerous occasions dating back to November 2023. Director Lorentzen ignored those quality of life complaints from residents by publishing an inaccurate self-directed noise study during the October 2023 PRCRC meeting that only measured decibel readings, when noise and sound studies require independent experts to measure not just decibel, but also frequency and hertz. A common point the Pickleball industry falsely claims is that the sound of the ball hitting the paddle is only 50 decibels. However, 50 decibels is the maximum tolerance for the average person attempting to fall asleep during evening hours, and any louder would present significant physiological challenges. Additionally, hertz and frequency measure the degree of vibration and oscillation of sound, and Pickleball hitting off the paddle repeated over the course of several hours can reach the range of between 1,000-2,000 hertz - violent enough to potentially cause moderate hearing loss long-term to those who find the noise undesirable, triggering the human fight or flight response and various other psychological ailments associated with insomnia and sleep apnea. To deny Pickleball has an issue with excessive noise is comparable to the tobacco industry denying smoking and second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. The City must cease implementing public works and parks projects that are knowingly detrimental and injurious to the quality and sanctity of life of City residents, as the refusal to change course now may ultimately result in the City defending against civil tort claims in the foreseeable future.
As the City Council receives its business agenda items for tonight, Tuesday, March 19, 2024, this letter urges the Council to suspend and table voting on item #17 on the agenda until further investigation reveals all pertinent facts surrounding all of the aforementioned concerns in this letter. All Milpitas residents who are concerned with the imminent passage of #17 would hope the Council refrain from taking a chronic, permissive approach to ignoring the angst and suffering many had to endure over this ill-conceived Pickleball project, at the hands of numerous self-dealing and politically abusive bad actors.
Please do better. Please be better. And please govern yourselves accordingly.
In defense of all Milpitas residents and the voiceless, with open discourse through anonymity,
JOHN Q. PUBLIC