Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates tennis-only restriction after staff flags noise concerns about pickleball
Summary
Commissioners questioned a staff condition limiting the new court to tennis only; staff said the applicant committed to tennis and that other uses such as pickleball have different noise profiles that staff had not analyzed; an applicant representative urged flexibility to allow basketball.
Commissioners pressed staff on a condition in the draft resolution that would limit the approved court’s use to tennis only.
A commissioner asked why the condition was included; Stephanie Fernandez said it was twofold: the applicant committed to tennis and staff has not analyzed potential noise impacts from other recreational uses. Fernandez said staff had heard complaints related to bocce and noted that “Tennis and, pickleball do not have the same noise levels,” adding that staff wanted to avoid unexamined noise impacts on nearby properties.
One commissioner challenged the idea that the landscape planting functions as a substantial noise barrier, arguing that a hedge with openings provides negligible dB reduction and that large, dense woodland would be required to reduce noise materially. The applicant’s landscape architect said the court is largely out of view and that the design uses evergreen screening and night-sky-compliant lighting; the applicant also asked whether a vehicle exists in the permit language to allow basketball or other limited uses.
The commission resolved the discussion by approving the resolution with a minor modification to allow basketball; commissioners noted that the lack of formal court lighting would likely limit nighttime use.
