|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|

Mountain View is exploring new locations to build pickleball courts after facing substantial opposition from community members who oppose the city paving over green and open spaces.
A group of Mountain View residents launched a campaign earlier this summer to keep pickleball out of Cuesta Park and Cuesta Annex, a 12.5-acre open space area next to the park, after the city announced those as potential sites for pickleball courts. The city has also been taking a close look at properties at San Rafael Avenue, where it recently acquired 2.3 acres to turn into a park.
Now, in the face of opposition to its existing proposals, the city says it is expanding its options. At a community meeting on Wednesday evening, city staff announced to more than 200 attendees that they were considering privately-owned properties that could be developed as publicly-accessible pickleball courts.
The properties that are being considered fit within the city’s criteria for a suitable site and would have minimal impact on surrounding residences or wildlife, Community Services Director John Marchant said at the meeting, which was held at the Mountain View Community Center.
Marchant declined to provide more information about the properties, including how many were being considered, saying that conversations were still in progress. But he noted that the discussions have been positive and city staff were prioritizing the exploration of the new sites before moving forward with existing plans.
The announcement was met with a mix of optimism and skepticism by community members, many of whom were wearing green t-shirts with the message, “Save Don’t Pave Cuesta Park & Annex.”
“I think most people would support pickleball courts if it didn’t mean taking away green and open space,” said Mountain View resident Li Zhang, who opposes putting courts at Cuesta. “I hope the city is open to more options.”
Bryan Malone, a Mountain View resident who plays pickleball, expressed some concern about the private-property option. It was unclear whether a fee would be imposed on players to use the courts, he said.
Overall, Malone said he was impressed with the city’s work so far, referring to the five conceptual plans that the city had on display on Wednesday for people to view, ask questions about and provide feedback on using post-it notes and comment cards.
Cuesta Park and Annex plans
Currently, the city has three dedicated pickleball courts and six additional courts shared with tennis players at Rengstorff Park. For years, players have been advocating for the city to build more courts, pointing to pickleball’s growing popularity and long wait times to play at Rengstorff during peak hours.
Three of the five conceptual plans presented at the Aug. 27 meeting involve putting pickleball courts either at Cuesta Park or the Annex.
The first plan is a replication of what the city proposed last year, which is to build 10 courts at Cuesta Park that would cover about an acre of the park known as the “dog bowl,” which currently serves as an off-leash dog area. The city is proposing to relocate the off-leash dog area to another part of the park.
The second plan proposes to build 12 pickleball courts on a portion of the Cuesta Annex that is next to the tennis ball wall and parking lot, taking up nearly an acre of open space or about 7% of the Annex. It also would require replacing up to five heritage trees.
The third plan proposes to build 12 pickleball courts at Cuesta Park, replacing four existing tennis courts closest to the dog bowl. Four new tennis courts would then be built at the Annex at the same location that was proposed for the second plan. The new tennis courts would take up nearly an acre of open space or about 7% of the Annex. It also would require replacing up to five heritage trees.
The estimated cost to build new courts at Cuesta Park and the Annex would range from $5 million to $7 million, which includes the cost of design and construction, said Faryal Saiidnia, the city’s senior project manager.
Post-it notes on the three plans expressed a wide range of thoughts on the suitability of the locations for pickleball courts, with a large number expressing strong opposition to the plans.
“If you take away green and open space, you’re not going to get it back,” said Pat Madden, a 31-year Mountain View resident. Madden was particularly concerned about the noise impact that pickleball courts would have on birds and wildlife in the area. It also would disturb people who enjoy the peacefulness of the park and Annex, she said.
San Rafael Avenue plans
The community meeting presented an opportunity for the city to unveil two new conceptual plans for pickleball courts not at Cuesta Park or the Annex. The city has been planning to develop a 2.3-acre park along San Rafael Avenue, a semi-industrial part of Mountain View that includes single-family homes and apartment buildings but very little green space.
In one plan, the city is proposing to build four to six courts at 939 and 917 San Rafael Ave. If the city builds four courts, it would take up nearly 0.3 acres of land, a bit more than 12% of the total park area. If the city builds six courts, it would take up about 0.4 acres of land or 18% of the total park area.
The second plan has a bigger footprint with 10 pickleball courts that also would extend to 909 San Rafael Ave. The courts would take up nearly 0.6 acres of land or 25% of the total park area.
The estimated cost to build new pickleball courts at San Rafael Avenue is in the range of $3 million to $5 million, Saiidnia said.
Compared to Cuesta Park and the Annex, the proposals to put pickleball courts at the San Rafael Avenue site has received much less attention.
At the community meeting, however, several residents living near San Rafael Avenue expressed concern that the city was backtracking on a commitment to support more green space in an underserved neighborhood.
“It’s poor planning to put the pickleball courts so close to homes,” said Richard Spillane, a Mountain View resident who lives in the Stierlin Estates neighborhood. He also noted that the area is seeing a lot of residential growth, including multistory apartment buildings for renters who can’t afford single-family homes with yards.
“We’re building the park not just for existing residents but for future residents who we welcome too,” Spillane said.
More information about the conceptual design proposals for pickleball courts, as well as the project background and criteria for selecting sites, is available on the city’s pickleball study website.










The same people (the City) that came up with a terrible idea (bringing a noisy sport and paving over Cuesta) claim they have an alternative. I’ll believe it when they sign the dotted line and the Council votes on it. Its hard to trust these people anymore if they’re going to put dumb options on the table.
I’ll stick to playing pickelball with my husband in Palo Alto.
This is about Human vs Nature; Pickleball is a new sport becoming popular within the past 8 – 10 years (since around the COVID-19 time), and when human wants to do this new activities more, they should be really thoughtful about where to do them. I strongly opposed paving over any size of green space or habitat to build pickleball courts because of the following:
1. You never get back the paved over green space and the plants and wildlife, and you shrink the space for wildlife (birds, butterflies, bees and other species) and plants and there is not getting them back once they are gone; and this is about what we are leaving to future generates and generates to inherit from us
2. Building courts for a sport that is known for its noise in a park is destroying the local neighborhood park and causing impact to the nearby homes – and don’t say there is no homes near the Cuesta Park because that’s not true
3. I urged the city and the pickleball players to be thoughtful for the environmental impact (noise, traffic and nature) to the park and to the community. Do the right thing! We need more green spaces, not less! We have other and better location that are not park land and could accommodate pickleball courts!
Please search “Pickleball Noises” in YouTube to learn more about the noise impact of this sport, some example videos for learning:
https://youtu.be/_jIaxJunjCI?si=aIDYngf-szeOBS06
https://youtu.be/oWiHOrGVAmo?si=tqsq5rRK8szx6AIl
https://youtu.be/gCQoY_hOpMo?si=pdKUYiHClLkMhv9e
https://youtu.be/zMmAr1KvE48?si=x5WHzjnhrZ0xj22V
https://youtu.be/1AI6uiFqbmM?si=IA2KTLjJJtGNP40q
How much park space would be also lost for parking at San Rafael?
Here we go with the pickleball NIMBYs. I’m sure that by next year, we’ll find that Mountain View residents want more pickleball courts, except for all the places where they’re feasible to build.
that makes sense, we want more housing, but it’s not feasible to build them today on many places across Mountain View. We’re not going to build it on Pioneer Park, are we? Or is that NIMBY too?
I agree with Ramirez. It’s hard to trust the City on this issue.
The Voice reported, “Last year, city staff selected Cuesta Park as one of the most suitable sites for a pickleball facility after looking at more than 60 other locations”. At the City meeting, only a summary of that analysis was presented. In particular, there was no mention that
** A) The ONLY parcels given serious consideration were those designated as “Parks” or “Open Space”. Many sites were ruled out for two key reasons:
1) “Too small for requested 8+ courts”
Translation: The City was willing to dramatically disfigure Cuesta Park, in order to make it easy for players to “just walk in and pick up a game”.
2) “Public Parking – not available for pickleball consideration as downtown parking is limited and City needs to expand not reduce parking here.”
Translation: the City was willing to pave over precious open space in order to preserve parking spots.
** B) The results of the cumulative scoring resulted in essentially a three-way tie at the top: Cuesta Park (36), Rengstorff Park (35), and Shoreline Regional Park (35).
Q: If the Top 3 finalists were Cuesta Park, Rengstorff Park, and Shoreline Regional Park, why was the public told that the 3 sites under consideration were Cuesta Park, the Annex, and San Rafael Park? IMHO, this is a very serious issue: the “recommendations” put forward had little to do with the results of the “analysis”. How did that decision come to be made?
In particular, why is Shoreline apparently not under consideration? It is about 10x the size of Cuesta and Rengstorff, and seems a much better choice for a large pickleball complex. The main issue with pickleball is noise akin to a chinese water torture, noise that inspires vandalism. Shoreline would be an ideal location to solve it.
A friend shared: “Why isn’t the dog park at Shoreline a consideration? It’s about an acre (which is what one of the Pickleball spokespersons says is needed for the 12 courts). It also has ample parking across the street. Yes, it’s a lot that is leased to Live Nation, but it is not used most of the year! It has space to expand past the current park. It’s also completely underutilized! My son and I were there with our dog at 9:30 this morning. We stayed for 90 minutes, and four dogs visited the place during that time. One dog owner told me they come on weekends and usually don’t see anyone else there! This was one of five visits I’ve made at varying times of day in the past week, and this was the first time I saw anyone here.”
Now the city is considering “privately-owned properties that could be developed as publicly-accessible pickleball courts”. This contradicts the FAQ (see https://collaborate.mountainview.gov/pickleballstudy ).
“10. Q: Has the City investigated purchasing or leasing property for new pickleball courts?
A:“Due to the high price of land in the area, this option was found to be cost-prohibitive.”
How much money will these new “privately-owned properties” cost the city? If it was “cost-prohibitive” before, why is that no longer an issue?
Will pickleball turn into an expensive mess, like the teacher housing project did? A $53.5 million windfall to a developer because the City actually chose to build on non-city owned land (among other problems)? See https://www.mv-voice.com/guest-opinion/2025/03/06/guest-opinion-mountain-view-whismans-housing-project-fails-teachers-students-and-taxpayers/ and https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2025/07/11/mountain-view-whisman-buys-teacher-housing-land-for-53-5-million/
P.S. FYI, I sent the detailed report to the MV Voice, so they can confirm the facts presented above.