Parks and Recreation Commission delays conversion of Mitchell Park tennis courts after heated public debate

The Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission on May 26 unanimously supported staff’s recommendation not to increase the city’s inventory of pickleball courts at Mitchell Park, delaying any conversion of tennis courts after an extended public comment period that brought competing community priorities into sharp relief.

Adam Howard, the city’s senior community services manager, presented a seven-month observational analysis showing sustained peak demand for pickleball at Mitchell Park (15 lit pickleball courts there) and long wait times—an average of about 26 people waiting during 68 spot-check days, with peaks near 60. Howard told commissioners staff weighed parking, noise, and user-conflict concerns and found that converting tennis courts 3 and 4 would raise demand without clear solutions for nearby impacts.

"We recommend not increasing inventory of the city of Palo Alto’s pickleball courts at this time," Adam Howard said, citing operational constraints at Mitchell Park.

The public comment period included dozens of callers and in-person speakers. Supporters of the conversion, including leaders of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club and several high-school students, described pickleball’s social and mental-health benefits and urged the city to create additional youth and community programming. "Pickleball was the difference between despair and hope," David Siegel, president of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, said during a 10-minute statement, describing outreach to seniors and youth and offers from the club to help pay for parking or sound-mitigation measures.

Opponents, including representatives of Magical Bridge Playground, Ability Path and Achieve Kids, said pickleball’s characteristic pop noise and larger crowds were disrupting the playground and services for children and families with developmental disabilities and sensory sensitivities. "For the one in 31 people living with autism and sensory sensitivities, that constant high-pitched pop is not just background noise. It is distress," said Olenka Villarreal, who helped found the Magical Bridge playground.

Commissioners heard alternatives staff investigated: dual-striping courts (tennis + pickleball lines), a resident reservation system, lighting at Cubberley to shift evening tennis demand, and building a dedicated pickleball complex (staff estimated a Baylands Athletic Center site could host about six courts at roughly $1.6 million). Howard and staff noted trade-offs: dual-striping can increase conflicts and demand; a permit/reservation program adds enforcement costs and could reduce casual rotations; building new courts faces cost, ecological, and neighborhood constraints.

The commission’s unanimous motion endorsed the staff and ad hoc recommendation "not to convert additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park at this time," citing operational, parking, noise and user-conflict concerns. Commissioners asked the ad hoc and staff to continue exploring alternatives—potential new sites, acoustic mitigation such as sound barriers and quieter paddles, parking arrangements, and possible lighting at Cubberley—and to return with concrete proposals.

What happens next: the commission’s ad hoc group will meet with staff and stakeholders to refine possible mitigation measures and to continue searching for alternate locations or partnership models (including models in neighboring cities and potential public–private facilities). The commission left the door open to future conversions only if the group can identify and demonstrate workable mitigation and replacement capacity for affected tennis play and for sensitive neighbors.

The vote was 7–0 in favor of the staff recommendation. The commission emphasized that its decision does not end efforts to increase recreational opportunities for pickleball players; rather, it requires more study and mitigation before altering Mitchell Park’s court inventory.