Cupertino Planning Commission finds FY2026–27 CIP consistent with general plan amid questions over pickleball noise and fiscal details

The Cupertino Planning Commission voted 4–1 to find the city’s proposed fiscal‑year 2026–27 Capital Improvement Program consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, advancing five projects including a pro shop renovation, a habitat conversion project, tennis‑court resurfacing, a pickleball sound‑attenuation retrofit at Memorial Park, and intersection work at Stevens Creek Boulevard and the State Route 85 northbound ramp.

Susan Michael, the city’s capital improvement program manager, opened the staff presentation and cited California Government Code 65401 and Cupertino Municipal Code §2.32.070 as the statutory basis for the commission’s review. Michael described the five proposed CIP projects and explained staff’s assessment of how each project aligns with relevant general‑plan goals and policies.

“Tonight’s action is to adopt a resolution finding that the fiscal‑year 2026–27 CIP proposal is consistent with the city’s general plan,” Michael said, summarizing the staff recommendation.

Commissioners asked questions focused on two recurring themes: fiscal justification and noise mitigation. Vice Chair Sharf and others sought clarity on whether the Blackberry Farm Golf Course pro shop and sports‑center tennis courts are net revenue generators and whether citing LU‑8.1 (fiscal health) was appropriate when some facilities appear to lose money. Staff responded that retaining and maintaining existing recreational facilities supports long‑term fiscal health but did not provide a definitive net‑revenue figure at the meeting.

Commissioner Ralph repeatedly pressed staff on noise‑related findings for the proposed pickleball mitigation at Memorial Park, pointing to Health and Safety policy HS8, which seeks to “minimize noise impacts on the community and maintain a compatible noise environment.” Ralph argued that without a baseline noise study or modeling showing the expected decibel reduction, the commission lacked sufficient basis to find HS8 satisfied. “Absent a substantive baseline noise level study or any modeling … we are not ready to conclude that we are conformant with the general plan,” Ralph said.

Director of Public Works Chad Mosley said staff plans to perform an acoustic analysis and that the current CIP action is intended to move the project forward to design and testing. “At this point in time what we’re doing is we’re looking at doing an acoustic analysis to verify that any improvements would actually help the problem,” Mosley said, adding that the city would structurally reinforce the existing fence as needed and select a product after engineering review.

Mosley and staff offered preliminary lifespan estimates for the polyethylene‑style sound panels that have been considered, noting replacement or significant maintenance might be expected on roughly a 10–15 year cycle (manufacturers sometimes cite 20–25 years), but staff did not present a final material choice or lifecycle cost estimate at the hearing.

A member of the public, Jennifer Griffin, urged the commission to consider safety and ADA access near the Stevens Creek/SR‑85 interchange and to address landscaping and maintenance around the Westport development and adjacent empty lots. “There’s a lot of weeds along Stevens Creek Boulevard … that need to be addressed,” Griffin said.

After extended discussion and several requests from commissioners for more detailed noise and fiscal information during design, Vice Chair Sharf moved that the commission find the FY2026–27 CIP consistent with the general plan; the motion was seconded and passed 4–1, with Commissioner Ralph voting no and Commissioners Fung, Sharf and Chair Cassolron voting yes (Commissioner Linskog was absent). The motion advanced the listed projects to the next stage in the CIP process but did not finalize project designs or materials.

Staff said the acoustical analysis and detailed design work will be completed during the subsequent project phase, at which point the proposed sound‑attenuation measures and any related noise modeling will be part of the public record and subject to further review. The commission and staff also noted the option for the commission to remove specific policy citations from the conformance matrix if a commissioner believes a particular policy (for example LU‑8.1) should not apply to a given project.

The commission closed the item, heard brief commission reports and adjourned the meeting.