Ross council orders staff to prepare denial of elevated sports court (pickleball) at 12 Canyon Road after residents cite noise, habitat and hillside‑ordinance 


The Ross Town Council on Aug. 14 directed staff to prepare findings and a resolution denying a proposal to build an elevated sports court at 12 Canyon Road, after a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors, consultants and the applicant presented competing noise and biological studies.

The proposed court would sit on a raised platform about 12 feet above grade, span a canyon/drainage feature and include retaining walls and glazed railings. Staff had presented draft findings and noted the applicant revised the plan after early Advisory Design Review comments — lowering the platform three feet, replacing a solid fence with glass railings and reducing deck area — and the ADR recommended approval 3–1. The applicant’s design and consultant team argued the structure would avoid direct impacts to the drainage and could be built on structural piers with minimal disturbance.

Neighbors opposed the project for multiple reasons: high, intermittent percussive noise from pickleball play; impacts on wildlife including bats and documented nearby northern spotted owl activity; bulk, massing and the court’s location over a drainage swale; and the effect on the canyon’s character. Opposition groups provided their own noise and biological studies and urged the council to reject the project. One opponent cited a recent acoustics paper and urged the council to avoid locating a court within a thousand feet of homes until more research is available.

Council members said the project conflicted with the town’s Hillside Lot Ordinance and general plan policies that call for minimizing bulk, preserving natural drainage and protecting significant canyon features. “Decks, particularly elevated decks, should enhance the appearance of a house and be of a scale and style which are compatible with the house, adjacent development, and the surroundings,” Mayor McMillan read from the ordinance and said the 12‑foot elevated platform spanning a swale was inconsistent with that guidance.

After closing the public hearing, the council voted unanimously to instruct staff to prepare a denial resolution with findings for adoption at a subsequent meeting; the staff‑prepared resolution will outline the ordinance findings supporting denial. Council members thanked neighbors and the applicant for engaging in the process but said they could not, in good faith, make findings that would allow the variance and the hillside‑lot exceptions the proposal would require.

Ending: The applicant and neighbors were each advised they will receive written notice and that staff will place the denial resolution on a future council consent calendar with the required findings.