Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Larkspur council approves Piper Park resurfacing and dedicates one court to pickleball
Summary
After months of contention between tennis and pickleball players, the City Council voted to resurface the courts and adopt a mixed plan: Courts 1–2 primarily for tennis, Court 4 dedicated to pickleball, and Court 3 scheduled by staff as a flexible, shared court.
The Larkspur City Council voted July 1 to resurface the tennis/pickleball courts at Piper Park and to change how the courts will be allocated, aiming to reduce conflict between user groups while retaining flexibility for tournaments.
City Manager (speaker label: City manager) framed the proposal as a combined operational and programming solution: resurfacing and striping would largely remain as-is, while the city would move from open “whoever shows up” play to clearer time slots and at least one physically dedicated court. “One reason I'm recommending the status quo ... is we have a long history of supporting tennis as a recreation program,” the city manager said, adding that temporary striping and programming could accommodate competitions without costly reconstruction.
The council’s final direction, moved by Council member Kandel and seconded by Council member Paulson, requires staff to proceed with resurfacing and to implement this allocation: Courts 1 and 2 primarily for tennis; Court 4 dedicated and netted for pickleball; Court 3 to be striped for both sports and scheduled by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote.
Why it mattered: Pickleball players testified that 8 courts concentrated at Piper Park have created a robust drop‑in culture that needs to be preserved for access and player development, while tennis instructors and club representatives urged protection of contiguous courts for practice and competition. Players and instructors offered operational details that shaped the compromise: tennis programs require contiguous courts for USTA matches, while pickleball players stressed that fewer than eight available courts would undermine the open‑play model.
Public input: Dozens of residents and user‑group representatives spoke during a lengthy public comment period. Pickleball supporters emphasized community participation and youth engagement and expressed a preference for one or more dedicated courts; tennis representatives highlighted competition and instruction needs and raised concerns about noise and scheduling. Contractor/coach Leo Giraldi and multiple community members described how competitions, coaching and informal drop‑in play currently use the facility.
Implementation and next steps: Staff will schedule the resurfacing work during an autumn window to minimize user disruption and will return with details about striping, procurement and the programming calendar. The council empowered staff to select durable nets and storage approaches to reduce court damage from moving equipment. The city manager said temporary striping remains an option for testing tournament configurations before making permanent changes.
Votes and formal action: The council approved the resurfacing and programming motion (mover: Council member Kandel; second: Council member Paulson) by voice vote. No roll‑call vote or individual tallies were recorded in the minutes.
The council asked staff to monitor use and return with data and community feedback; the item may be revisited if scheduling or operational problems persist.
