Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After long debate, Ross council agrees not to retroactively restrict existing private pickleball courts; seeks standards for new courts
Summary
Council settled on leaving existing private and permitted courts as-is but asked staff to return with options for new private sports courts: possible neighborhood outreach/contiguous-neighbor sign-off, a noise-study standard (examples discussed: a 4-hour playing window and 55-dBA weighting), or conditions in design review. Staff will return with proposed language and outreach.
After more than two hours of public comment and council discussion, the Ross Town Council reached a working consensus: do not impose retroactive restrictions on existing private or CUP-covered courts, and direct staff to develop options for permitting prospective new private pickleball courts.
Planning Director Roberta Feliciano summarized staff findings on quieter equipment and mitigation. She said the national governing body now certifies "quiet" paddles (e.g., the "owl" category) and that foam balls can reduce impact noise; she also reported 31 public comments received by the town (11 supporting regulations and 20 urging no new restrictions). Feliciano said an applicant for a proposed sports court had commissioned a noise study using a conservative four-hour playing window; that analysis concluded the unmitigated sound could exceed the Ross General Plan noise benchmark (a 55-dBA weighted 24-hour exterior standard) and recommended mitigation (barriers and use of quieter paddles).
Public commenters were split. Players, club representatives and buyers of homes with existing courts urged the council not to curb private recreation or to grandfather existing courts; a prospective homebuyer said an existing court was a material purchase factor. Other residents and acoustics experts argued the distinctive pitch, frequency and repetition of pickleball shots are uniquely intrusive and said mitigation is expensive and not uniformly effective in canyon topographies.
Council members proposed a small menu of approaches rather than a blanket ban: leave all existing courts (including town courts and CUP-covered club courts) unchanged unless complaints arise; for new private courts, require neighborhood outreach during design review (with a contiguous-neighbor sign-off option) or require a noise analysis using a conservatively defined playing window (staff cited a 4-hour window used in an applicant study) and mitigation where measurements exceed the town's standard. Some councilmembers also suggested encouraging quiet equipment and reasonable hours as interim measures.
Staff did not return with an ordinance but was directed to come back with draft language reflecting the options discussed and to solicit further public input before the council takes a formal vote.
Speakers quoted in this report appear in the meeting transcript.
