Published proposal · October 29 update
Permanent pickleball noise.
Empty promises of protection.
Permanent striping is directed outright. Noise protection has no funded, feasible implementation plan.
Other protective measures were removed over permitting concerns, while the remaining acoustic panels raise unresolved wind-load and safety questions.
Ask the Board to vote NO on Resolution 626.
The revised Resolution 626 is now published for comment. The October 24 vote approved publication, not final implementation; a final decision is expected in December.
The location is the problem.
Del Mar puts repetitive pickleball noise close to homes and alongside tennis. The proposal also carries undisclosed costs to members.
Yet the Board is pursuing permanent pickleball without a site-specific noise study, a funded, feasible protection plan, or a full comparison with improving access at Moonraker.
Permanent lines do not solve a poor location.
Mitigation theater, not a workable protection plan.
Permanent striping is directed outright; noise protection measures depend on “staff time and resources.” The resolution supplies no funded, feasible plan or requirement to make protection effective before striping.
Quiet loaner paddles are not a mandatory-use or enforcement system.
These performative measures are not a serious attempt to address neighbors’ concerns.
Neighbors spoke up. Protections were removed.
The west-side fence extension and backboard relocation were dropped by Board Chair Tim Fulkerson because they may trigger County permitting and environmental review.
Removing protection because it requires permits does not remove the noise.
The Board responded to neighbors’ requests for a properly reviewed project with a revised proposal offering less protection. This response sends a message that dissent will not be tolerated and creates an appearance of retaliation against concerned neighbors.
The responsible approach is to obtain the required permits, not remove protections. Permitting and engineering go directly to whether the promised protection is feasible. Ask the Board to reject 626 and pursue a solution that protects homes, preserves tennis and spends responsibly.
Hanging acoustic panels is not a simple fix.
Acoustic screening on existing fencing remains proposed, but it is unfunded and has not been evaluated for effectiveness at Del Mar.
Solid coverings increase wind loads on open fencing. The Centennial noise study warns of fence-collapse danger and calls for manufacturer or structural-engineer review before installation. Ordinary wind screens are not noise barriers. Resolution 626 requires no such engineering check.
Engineering, possible fence replacement and acoustic panels can push a substantial retrofit into six figures. Resolution 626 does not disclose the full cost of these measures.
Without evidence that these measures will work or funding to deliver them, neighbors are left with a performative, empty promise of noise protection.
Tennis players lose booking freedom.
Tennis reservations on Court 2 would be allowed only when Court 1 is unavailable, alongside permanent pickleball markings.
Members still have no complete price.
The resolution sets no overall spending cap, commits no specific mitigation funding and requires no independent noise assessment or complete budget for construction, maintenance and enforcement.
The need is still unexplained.
The resolution says there is generally no capacity problem. Yet it proposes permanent changes at Del Mar without requiring a comparison of better access and better use at Moonraker.
Years of play and a lack of recorded complaints do not establish that nearby homes will be protected.
We consider the resolution’s County-review finding knowingly deceptive.
Before the hearing, the Board received the County’s written clarification that its earlier review covered only striping. Yet it kept this finding in the published resolution:
WHEREAS, Sonoma County has indicated there is no need for any environmental review as the Association is contemplating additional striping on Del Mar Court #2, as opposed to adding an entirely new pickleball facility;
Keeping that assurance gives members a misleading picture: the County had not evaluated the full proposal, and its permitting requirements remain unresolved.
The solar debacle should have taught TSRA to resolve permits, environmental constraints and full costs before committing members’ money. Members should not be led into another commitment without those answers.
More from the October 24 hearing
Concerned members have requested mediation, a noise analysis and funded mitigation. The Board moved the proposal forward without committing to those requests. We appreciated Mark Godley’s acknowledgment of noise concerns and openness to alternatives, and Gina Hubbell’s no vote and work exploring improved access at Moonraker.
Compare alternatives fairly: accessibility, noise, tennis impacts, approvals, and complete construction and ongoing costs. Opportunities at Ohlson also need careful evaluation of nearby homes and existing uses.
Tim Fulkerson linked removal of the fence extension and backboard work to permitting and environmental-review concerns at approximately 2:04:54–2:05:54 and 2:22:04–2:23:13 in the full October 24 Board recording.
Tell the Board: Reject Resolution 626
Permanent pickleball at Del Mar would adversely affect neighboring homes, tennis players and every member funding it. Tell the Board what matters to you and ask it to evaluate better access and better use at Moonraker before committing to permanent changes at Del Mar.
Opens your email app with the recipients and subject filled in. Add your own comments before sending.
To: boardofdirectors@tsra.org · Cc: info@tsra.org