Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pickleball Mitchell Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pickleball advocates urge Mitchell Park court conversions, offer funding commitment
Summary
Two members of the local pickleball community urged the Parks and Recreation Commission during public comment to convert underused tennis courts at Mitchell Park into additional pickleball courts, arguing the change would boost community wellness and offering donor funding and temporary parking solutions.
Two speakers representing local pickleball players urged the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider repurposing underused tennis courts at Mitchell Park to meet rapidly rising demand for pickleball play.
Ranji (identified as a Palo Alto resident and founder of a mental-health company, MoodFit) framed pickleball as a substantial community wellness opportunity, arguing the sport promotes social connection and can help address loneliness and mental-health needs. Ranji urged commissioners to “consider the wellness benefit” above common objections such as parking or noise.
David Siegel, president of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, told commissioners the city currently has roughly 51 tennis courts and only 15 pickleball courts; he described the club as having about 1,500 members at the end of 2024, about 900 of whom are Palo Alto residents. Siegel said converting two underused tennis courts could create up to eight pickleball courts and “support up to 32 times more player games and interactions,” and he said the club and donors have proposed covering conversion costs. Siegel estimated converting tennis courts to pickleball costs about $100,000 and said the club has arranged access to an additional 35 parking spaces from a nearby neighbor during peak times.
Speakers acknowledged concerns that often surface in pickleball debates — noise, parking and impacts to tennis players — and said the club is willing to work with the city on mitigation and scheduling. Neither speaker asked the commission to take immediate action at the meeting; commissioners received the comments during the public-comment portion of the agenda.
No formal agenda item, motion or staff recommendation on court conversions was taken at the meeting. Commissioners did not vote on a policy change; staff and commissioners discussed that planning for court use and balancing different recreation needs would be part of longer-term turf, facilities and court-reservation updates coming to the commission.
