Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cupertino residents urge council to fund sound barriers, oppose blanket restrictions on Memorial Park pickleball
Summary
Multiple residents and organized groups urged the council not to impose broad hour restrictions at Memorial Park’s pickleball courts and instead to fund sound‑abatement measures and a CIP for a noise wall; speakers flagged the activity’s social value and urged collaborative community engagement before imposing limits.
Dozens of residents and organized players told the Cupertino City Council they support preserving access to Memorial Park pickleball courts and urged the city to invest in noise abatement rather than impose a trial that would restrict hours or require quiet paddles at all times.
Kathy Chiu, a member of the Cupertino Pickleball Club leadership team, told the council the club has worked with parks staff and neighbors — including agreeing to turn lights off by 9 p.m. — and that compliance with quiet paddles has been strong among morning players but mixed in the evening. Chiu said the proposed trial limiting hours feels “sudden, heavy handed, and frankly unnecessary,” and asked the city to budget for sound barriers and start a capital improvement process to install them at Memorial Park.
Multiple speakers — including Zoe (a recent resident and parent), Tom Cunningham (an active player and community leader), Adam Warren and other members of organized groups — emphasized that the courts are an inclusive, cross‑generational community resource. Tom Cunningham said the courts draw players aged “6 to 80,” reported about 32 players on court with 42 waiting during peak times, and called the courts a low‑cost community asset that supports social ties and health. Adam Warren urged the council to reject the trial and prioritize construction of sound barriers and community outreach before any access limits.
City staff acknowledged that they are evaluating sound‑barrier options and described plans to add structural supports and noise screens; staff said they had consulted a structural expert and were preparing conceptual designs and a budget. Some residents and students urged that the council preserve early‑morning and evening access for those with limited schedules and to consider alternative court locations where possible. One speaker (Rhoda Frey) noted neighbor concerns and suggested seeking additional court space at locations such as De Anza College.
Council members did not take a final policy vote that night; the record shows sustained public interest and requests that staff develop costs, timelines and community engagement plans for sound abatement and consider alternatives to strict hour limits.
Next steps: staff will continue planning for sound‑abatement solutions, develop cost estimates for potential capital improvements and return to council with proposals that include community outreach.
