HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4A - Public Comment for Zoning of 16 Pickleball Courts Adjacent Residential Properties - Leahy emailFrom:Charles.leahy@sbcglobal.net
To:Ken Lyon; Anthony Riederer; Christopher Hadwin; Anita Fields
Cc:Jeff Ballinger-C; Carl Schmits
Subject:Public Comment for Zoning of 16 Pickleball Courts Adjacent Residential Properties
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:30:36 AM
Attachments:Pickleball Sound 103.pdf
To Planning 6-9-2025.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Enclosed are my public comments for today's meeting.
Thank you, please call if you have any questions.
Charles Leahy, Pickleball Noise Consultant
Cathedral City, CA.-
313-402-8177
To: Ken Lyon, Principal City Planner – Ken.Lyon@palmspringsca.gov
Anthony Riederer, Assistant Planning Director – Anthony.Riederer@palmspringsca.gov
Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services – Christopher.Hadwin@palmspringsca.gov
Anita.fields@palmspringsca.gov
Jeff.Ballinger-C@palmspringsca.gov
Copy: Carl Schmits, Chief Technical Officer, USA Pickleball, carl.schmits@usapickleball.org
From: Charles Leahy, Pickleball Noise Consultant,
69411 Ramon Rd
Cathedral City, CA
charles.leahy@sbcglobal.net
313-402-8177
Member, Acoustical Society of America, Institute of Noise Control Engineers, National
Recreation and Parks Association, USA Pickleball
Date: June 9, 2025
Re: Objections and Recommendations Regarding DP-2024-0007 / AMM-2024-
0013
Proposed 16-Court Pickleball Complex at Ramon Road and Airport Center Drive
Dear Mr. Lyon, Mr. Riederer, and Mr. Hadwin,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed 16-court commercial pickleball
complex at the southwest corner of Avenida Evelita and Airport Center Drive. After careful
review of the staff report, architectural plans, and zoning documents, I believe the project, as
proposed, is incompatible with the General Plan, underestimates noise impacts, misapplies
zoning categories, and lacks critical environmental and accessibility considerations.
1. Residential Proximity Severely Understated
The site is directly across Ramon Road from a residential area comprising 25 existing homes and
several vacant lots within 500 feet. Many more homes are within the well-known 1000-foot
radius of pickleball noise propagation.
The nearest home is only 200 feet away; the closest vacant lot is just 150 feet from the court
perimeter. The claim in the staff report that residences are “far enough away” is demonstrably
false. These lots may become unbuildable due to chronic noise exposure. The project poses a
direct and adverse impact on adjacent residential land use rights.
2. Noise Impacts Minimized Without Evidence
The applicant proposes daily hours of 6am to 11pm — 17 hours of impulsive impact noise,
totaling up to 14,400 percussive paddle strikes per hour from the 16 courts combined. These
are not ambient sounds; they are distinct, repetitive, tonal "pops" that spike higher in frequency
and volume than traffic or airport noise. These are the “intrusive” noises identified in the General
Plan.
The staff report's dismissal of noise concerns based on nearby traffic and airport activity is
speculative and not supported by a sound study of any kind. The City cannot make a CEQA
categorical exemption finding without a proper technical analysis of site-specific acoustic
impacts. Noise burdens on the adjoining residences will be greatest during the evenings and on
weekends and holidays when traffic on Ramon Road is moderated.
Noise concern is extensively addressed in Pickleball Sound 103: Mitigating Pickleball Sound –
Is Pickleball Compatible with Residential Environments? by Barry Wyerman and Robert
Unetich, presented at NoiseCon 2023, Institute of Noise Control Engineers. The full paper is
attached to this letter for your review.
3. No Qualified Noise Study
The staff report's suggestion that noise will not pose a “detriment” is purely speculative. No field
testing or predictive modeling has been performed. The failure to require a qualified noise
study — particularly for a project with extended hours, hard-surface paddles, and large court
density — is inconsistent with best planning practices and environmental due diligence.
4. Land Use Classification Is Misapplied
The site is zoned Neighborhood/Community Commercial (NCC). By the City’s own
descriptions (via engagepalmsprings.com, planning.org, and the General Plan), NCC zones are
intended for neighborhood-serving, convenience-oriented uses. This project includes paid
reservations, regional marketing, alcohol service, and a two-story concessions/viewing deck,
indicating it will draw customers from outside the neighborhood and city.
The project’s scale, use type, and service area indicate it exceeds NCC criteria. A more
appropriate zoning framework would be RC (Recreational Commercial), MU (Mixed Use), or
a PUD/CUP, where detailed oversight of noise, traffic, parking, and compatibility is properly
integrated.
5. Commercial and Entertainment Use
With its monetized court scheduling, food/beverage operation, and planned beer/wine license,
the project should be treated as an entertainment destination. It will draw non-neighborhood
patrons who remain to socialize after play. This function extends well beyond what is
contemplated under a simple “recreational use” in NCC zoning.
6. Accessibility Deficiencies
None of the proposed 16 courts meets USA Pickleball’s published design standards for
wheelchair-accessible play. The City must ensure ADA compliance with newly built public or
commercial sports facilities.
7. Insufficient Parking
A 10% reduction in parking has been requested despite dual demands: playtime and
food/beverage dwell time. Fifty-five spaces are unlikely to serve the projected number of patrons
and staff during peak periods. This could lead to a spillover onto surrounding streets and future
complaints.
8. Recommendations
• Require a qualified noise study, including compliance with:
o California Code 3479 and 3480 for private and public nuisance
o Municipal code Section 11.74.040 General Guidelines
o Municipal code Section 11.74.031 Noise Level Decibel Limit
o General Plan Section PS1 and provision for “intrusive” noise.
o CEQA and California Noise Control Act
• Consult with Carl Schmits, Chief Technology Officer of USA Pickleball, to identify an
experienced engineering firm.
o Email: carl.schmits@usapickleball.org
• The noise study should consider and discuss strong mitigations, as recommended in
Pickleball Sound 103:
o A full sound barrier along Ramon Road and partial barrier on East and
West to prevent flanking around the ends
o Use of OWL paddles and Librarian Foam balls
o Reduced hours (e.g., 8am–7pm, no play on evenings, Sundays and holidays
due to reduced ambient traffic noise on Ramon)
• Designate at least one handicap-compliant court
• Ban outdoor amplified music or announcements
• Reconsider the NCC designation
• Conduct a full zoning consistency and traffic/parking evaluation
• Relocate the facility to inside a building or an outdoor commercial or industrial parcel at
least 1,000 feet from residences if compliance and mitigation cannot be achieved.
9. Relevant Precedents To Consider
• Bobby Riggs Racket & Paddle Club, Encinitas – ongoing residential noise complaints
and city enforcement activity SanDiegoVille: Iconic San Diego Pickleball Venue
Threatened By Potential Shutdown
• Torrance, CA – pickleball zoning ordinance requires minimum 250-foot setback from
nearest court to the residential property line
• San Clemente – San Gorgonio Park – pickleball courts permanently closed after
neighbors sued and won a legal settlement over noise nuisance
10. Here is the Sound of Pickleball on 12 Courts
12 pickleball courts.m4a
• There are many hits, which depend upon the number of courts in action. 16 courts will
be more hits than the 12 courts in this recording.
• Impulsive pops are created at the rate of about 15 per minute for each court, 900 per
hour for each court.
• The loudness of the hits is going up and down, depending on how hard the ball is hit and
the equipment being used
• The spacing between the individual popping noises is random and unpredictable – what
you hear is “pop -- pop,pop,pop – pop,pop -- pop.”
• The player noise is separate and additional to the popping noise.
• There can be extra noise such a distant lawn mower, vehicle drive-by, etc.
• This is only one minute, these neighbors will hear this for 17 hours a day, seven days a
week.
• The loudness for each neighbor depends upon factors such as the distance to their
property, noise reflections off intervening structures, weather conditions, etc.
Attachment
• Pickleball Sound 103: Mitigating Pickleball Sound – Is Pickleball Compatible with
Residential Environments?
Barry Wyerman & Robert Unetich, NoiseCon 2023
Appendix – Qualifications
Charles E Leahy
Attorney (licensed in Michigan) and Mechanical Engineer
Harbor Springs, MI
Cathedral City, CA
313-402-8177
Charles.leahy@sbcglobal.net
Linkedin:
(14) Charles Leahy | LinkedIn
Presentation of Continuing Legal Education to the International Municipal Lawyers
Association, Nov 2024:
2024-Nov-12-Charles-Leahy-Intl-Municipal-Lawyers-Assn-3.pdf
Presentations at the Acoustical Society of America, Ottawa Canada, May 2024:
Pickleball Courts in a Legal Pickle #ASA186
Publications
Preliminary analysis of 79 pickleball noise consultant reports by 36 consultants |
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics | AIP Publishing
Memberships
Michigan Bar Association
National Recreation and Parks Association
Acoustical Society of America
Institute of Noise Control Engineers
USA Pickleball
Disclaimer – I am an attorney licensed in Michigan. I am not your lawyer unless we have
signed a retainer agreement. I do not practice law or offer legal advice in other states. You
should consult an attorney in your state for any legal questions.
Pickleball Sound 103 - Mitigating Pickleball Sound - Is Pickleball
Compatible with Residential Environments?
Barry Wyerman1 and Robert Unetich2
Pickleball Sound Mitigation LLC
1811 Woodlands Circle
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
ABSTRACT
The popularity of pickleball has created many avid players seeking more pickleball courts in community parks,
apartment complexes, homeowners’ associations, country clubs, and residential neighborhoods. Existing tennis
courts are often used for both tennis and pickleball. Nearby residents accustomed to sounds from tennis will hear
a louder sound from pickleball and a sound with different tonal qualities. Depending on the sound level and the
distance from the pickleball court, pickleball sound can be a source of annoyance. Several explanations are given
why community noise ordinances fail to properly address pickleball sounds. Sound mitigation strategies for
pickleball play are described that follow traditional approaches for noise control at the source, along the path,
and at the receiver. These approaches include use of commercially available acoustical materials, reorientation
of courts, preferred paddles and balls, new site locations, and play schedules. The expected noise reductions for
each option are outlined to help determine if pickleball noise can be compatible with residential environments.
Estimates of minimum distances from courts where pickleball sound will not be an annoyance are made
considering the background sound and the sound mitigation in place.
1. INTRODUCTION
Pickleball is a game played with two to four players using paddles, a ball, and a net on a court that is
approximately one half the length and width of a tennis court (1). Each paddle and ball impact during a
game creates a short pulse of sound that varies in intensity, duration, and frequency content (2,3). For
homeowners near pickleball courts, pickleball sounds can become bothersome and intrusive.
Pickleball was created in 1965 in Bainbridge Island, Washington (4) and now has a worldwide
following. Its growth is a result of players being introduced to this sport during winters in Florida or
Arizona and then returning to their homes in search of pickleball courts. The rapid growth of pickleball
has created a demand for more pickleball courts in communities across the United States and globally.
Because the game is easy to learn and is very engaging, pickleball players are passionately committed
to this sport. Apps exist to locate the closest pickleball courts for any zip code.
A common solution for adding pickleball courts in many communities is to use existing tennis courts
and create dual purpose courts. Tennis courts found in community parks, apartment complexes,
______________
1 wyerbr@sbcglobal.net
2 itsrmu@aol.com
homeowners’ associations, country clubs, and residential neighborhoods are being used for pickleball.
In some cases, tennis courts have been re-purposed as pickleball courts. In this case, up to four pickleball
courts can be added in the space of one tennis court.
The popularity of pickleball has also created community and homeowner awareness of the
unmistakable “popping” sound when a paddle strikes a ball. The unique time and spectral characteristics
of pickleball play make these sounds easily distinguishable from other sounds. Pickleball sound levels
and sound mitigation options are important to communities faced with a growing demand for more
pickleball courts and to residents living close to any court where pickleball is played.
The location and design of these courts then becomes critical to avoiding noise complaints from
residents who live nearby. A common question on social media is, “How far away do pickleball courts
need to be to avoid noise problems?” There is no simple answer other than, “It depends.”
The purpose of this study is to show the differences between sound from pickleball and tennis, to
review how noise ordinances address pickleball sound, to outline a measurement method and noise limit
to properly quantify pickleball sound, and to describe pickleball sound mitigation strategies.
2. THE SOUNDS OF PICKLEBALL AND TENNIS
To compare the sounds from pickleball and tennis, the impact sound was measured with a ball drop onto
a pickleball paddle and a tennis racquet mounted in a test chamber. The ball speed was 18.9 miles per
hour at impact. Figure 1 shows the 1/3 octave spectrum and the maximum sound level for A-weighted,
fast response (LAFmax) measurements for the paddle and the racquet impacts. The pickleball impact
generates a higher overall sound level and has more high frequency content than the tennis impact.
Figure 1 – Pickleball and tennis impact from a dropped ball at 18.9 MPH
The pickleball impact at 86 LAFmax is over 20 dB higher than the tennis impact at 62.9 LAFmax.
This difference shows that pickleball can be 4 or more times louder than tennis. It explains why pickleball
sound is receiving attention when former tennis courts are used for pickleball. The loudness of each
pickleball impact can further vary based on the paddles and balls being used, the skill level of each
player, and the force of each impact.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000 8000 12500SPL (dBA)1/3 octave center frequency (Hz)
Paddle LAFmax=86
Tennis racquet LAFmax=62.9
3. NOISE ORDINANCES AND PICKLEBALL
3.1. Community noise ordinances
Noise is sound that annoys. Community noise ordinances establish noise limits so that sound is neither
annoying nor bothersome, even though it may be audible. These ordinances are not intended to establish
a limit where sound is inaudible. They are intended to establish a limit where the presence of sound
above a background sound level will not be objectionable. The background sound level is the result of
wind, birds, normal ambient activity, and traffic.
Noise ordinances vary in their ability to quantify annoyance from pickleball noise. A survey of several
noise standards for US cities shows several common themes.
• Failure to address impulsive noise – Measurement methods for continuous noise understate pickleball
impacts and can conclude that these impacts are in compliance with a noise limit.
• A 5 dB penalty for any noise that is impulsive noise – This adjustment adds more substance to an
ordinance but often omits the noise measurement settings. Even when a 5 dB penalty is added to an
impulse measurement made with a slow meter setting, this will understate the loudness of a pickleball
impact.
• Limits based on average values from fast settings – Average or mean values are several standard
deviations below the maximum sound that can occur. These maximum sound levels are typically the
cause of annoyance.
• Limits based on dB peak – Peak noise measurements are not applicable to pickleball noise because
they do not capture the duration of the impact.
• Limits based on a subjective response – Wording such as, “It is unlawful for any noise that interferes
with the enjoyment of life of a reasonable person” means that a noise complaint could only be resolved
with a court case.
• Exclusion of noise limits for public parks or sporting events – This exclusion would assume that a
prior noise study was completed with no noise issues identified before a pickleball court was
constructed.
3.2. Recommended noise ordinance
A recommended noise limit for pickleball has been established based on an average LAFmax from
several measurements and the background sound level. When the background sound level is below 47
dBA, the limit is an average of 50 LAFmax. The average LAFmax comes from 4 individual LAFmax
measurements of 60 seconds each. When the background sound level is above 47 dBA, the limit is
LAFmax = background sound + 3 dB. This variable limit accounts for the presence of high background
sound. This limit has been successfully used to quantify sound from pickleball, to evaluate the risk of
pickleball noise complaints, to perform site studies for pickleball courts, and to evaluate the effectiveness
of pickleball sound mitigation strategies.
4. PICKLEBALL SOUND MITIGATION STRATEGIES
The common approach to solving any noise control problem is to investigate solutions involving the
source, the path, and the receiver (SPR). Effective noise control at the source can eliminate the need for
noise control along the path or at the receiver. This can mean either reducing the sound power of the
noise or controlling the noise at the source before it travels along multiple paths to a receiver. Often, all
three approaches must be used to achieve the desired noise reduction.
Several sound mitigation strategies are available for reducing pickleball sound. These options can be
applied at the source, along the path, or at the receiver. Some options are more effective in reducing
sound. Some are easier to implement. Some are lower in cost. Some are easier to control. Each option
will be described, and then, all of these will be compared.
5. PICKLEBALL NOISE CONTROL AT THE SOURCE
5.1. Recommended paddles
As pickleball technology has evolved, so have the new composites and materials that are being used in
paddle construction. This has resulted in many different paddle designs with over 1700 paddles approved
by USA pickleball for tournament play. Some paddles produce lower sound levels than others. However,
the technology has not evolved to the point where any paddle can be considered a stealth paddle.
Several paddles have been tested in a chamber to identify paddles with lower noise signatures than
older, louder paddles (3). These recommended paddles can be from 3 to 7 dBA quieter than the loudest
paddles. The key to reducing paddle noise is to reduce paddle vibration, shift the sound energy to
frequency bands below 1000 Hz, and increase damping. The green paddle list by Sun City (5) includes
recommended paddles for lower noise. These paddles will reduce but not eliminate pickleball sounds.
A mandate to use paddles from an approved list is always hard to enforce for recreational players who
are accustomed to playing with a preferred paddle. To help with enforcement, a community could
purchase enough loaner paddles so that all players would use the same model of a quieter paddle.
5.2. Recommended balls
While many plastic balls are approved for pickleball play, some balls produce slightly lower sound levels
when struck with a paddle. The sound level difference among balls is much less than the difference
among paddles. Balls have been tested in a chamber to select balls with lower noise signatures than some
of the louder balls. These recommended balls can be from 1 to 3 dBA quieter than the loudest balls.
These balls will reduce but not eliminate pickleball sounds.
A mandate to use balls from an approved list is always hard to enforce for recreational players. To
help with enforcement, a community could purchase and supply balls that are considered quieter than
the loudest balls and only allow pickleball play with this model of ball.
A recommended paddle and ball combination for lowest noise should be evaluated for noise at a
pickleball court to compare sound levels and reactions before any restrictions or community decisions
are made.
5.3. Court time
Restricting court time has the effect of an on-off switch for pickleball. This can be controlled on courts
with a gated entry that can be locked. However, restricted play time limits the hours of court availability.
This is something a community should review based on the availability of alternate courts, the number
of pickleball players, and critical times for noise such as early morning or late evening.
5.4. Enclosures
A simple solution to any noise problem is to build a box around the sound source so that sound does not
escape. For pickleball, this means an indoor facility. The preferred enclosure for pickleball play could
be a repurposed warehouse, a vacant commercial building, or a metal building. Air supported structures
(known as tennis bubbles and often used for winter tennis or golf) can also enclose pickleball. The walls
of an air supported structure do not provide as much transmission loss as a traditional building structure,
but they may be sufficient for pickleball sound reduction. These enclosures keep the sound inside and
shield nearby homeowners from pickleball sounds. An indoor pickleball facility could also provide year
round pickleball play. The cost of such a facility is often offset by a membership fee or daily player fee.
5.5. New Site Selection
A new site is the equivalent of moving the noise source to a new location. Any new pickleball site should
be far enough away from homes to avoid complaints from residents without incurring the added cost of
sound mitigation. This does not mean that a new pickleball site must be remote from a city center.
Alternative pickleball sites within a city center that are less likely to have noise complaints are sites near
a highway, near an airport, or near an industrial zone. The higher noise limits of industrial zones, the
higher background sound levels, and the lower land values of these sites often make them attractive sites
for expansion of pickleball play.
Table 1 shows estimates for the minimum distance between a court and a home to avoid pickleball
complaints by considering both background sound and sound mitigation. These minimum distances are
determined using a reference LAFmax measured at 100 feet, sound attenuation at 6 dB per doubling of
distance, sound mitigation, and a variable background sound limit. For example, if the background sound
level is 45 dBA and no mitigation is in place, the minimum distance to the nearest residence should be
977 feet. At higher background sound levels and with added sound mitigation, this distance can be
reduced.
Table 1 – Estimates of the minimum distance in feet from courts to avoid pickleball complaints (1)
Background sound (dBA) 45 dBA 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
Distance (ft)– no mitigation 977 687 377 202
Distance (ft)– 10 dB mitigation 292 202 103 48
Distance (ft)– 20 dB mitigation 77 48 17 1
(1) The distances in Table 1 are based on standard sound attenuation with distance. Variations in sound
attenuation with distance occur due to wind direction and speed and to atmospheric refraction. The
temperature profile above the ground can bend the sound waves upward or downward (6). This can result
in increases or decreases in these minimum distances.
5. PICKLEBALL NOISE CONTROL ALONG THE PATH
5.1. Acoustical Barriers
Acoustical barriers block the direct path of sound that travels from a source to a receiver. A barrier must
be massive enough to block sound that could pass through it. The recommended weight for a barrier is
one pound per square foot. Even with a massive barrier, a small amount of sound still passes over the
top or around the edges of the barrier via diffraction. The sound reduction with a barrier is limited by the
height and width of the barrier. If the barrier height is restricted due to a local code or due to the support
strength of an existing fence, then the sound reduction over the barrier will be reduced. In this case, the
weight of the barrier may be reduced below one pound per square foot.
The barrier must be solid with no holes, no gaps at the bottom, and no gaps between adjoining panels.
Any holes or openings will allow sound to leak to the other side. Earth mounds and buildings can function
as barriers if they disrupt a direct path of sound. Shrubs, bushes, and trees are not barriers even though
they block a line of sight. They are not massive and solid enough to block sound. A small amount of
sound attenuation may be achieved with a dense planting of hedges, but this would not provide more
than 2 to 3 dB sound reduction.
The effectiveness of any barrier is controlled primarily by its height and then by its width. The barrier
must be tall enough and wide enough to minimize the sound that is diffracted or bent over the top and
around the edge. Figure 1 shows multiple ray paths between one sound source and one receiver over a
30 foot tall barrier around a pickleball court using sound mapping software (6).
Figure 1 – Three dimensional sound map showing ray paths over 30 foot barriers to receiver
The sound attenuation by barriers 5, 10, 20, and 30 feet high was determined with the use of noise
modeling software. Figure 2 shows the omnidirectional sound field from a pickleball impact with no
barrier in place. Sound attenuation with distance is evident. The receiver positions are at 20 and 40 feet
behind the source and at 20, 40, 80, and 160 feet in front of the source.
Figure 3 shows the sound field at the same receiver locations with a 10 foot barrier placed 10 feet
from the source. On the source side of the barrier, a slight increase in dB level is seen. This is due to the
sound from the front of the paddle being reflected from the barrier and combining with the direct sound
from the rear. On the receiver side of the barrier, the sound level decreases with distance. At each receiver
location, the difference between the sound level with no barrier and the sound level with the barrier is
the barrier attenuation. Comparing Figure 3 to Figure 2, the change in sound level at each receiver
location is the added sound attenuation by the barrier. Similar sound fields were created for barrier
heights of 5, 20, and 30 feet.
Figure 2 – Sound field with no barrier
Figure 3 – Sound field with 10 foot barrier and at 10 feet from source
Figure 4 shows the added barrier attenuation at several distances from the barrier. This attenuation is
in addition to the normal noise attenuation with distance. The greatest attenuation with a barrier occurs
when the receiver is closest to the barrier. This is the shadow zone. At greater distances from each barrier,
the added sound attenuation by each barrier is constant. A 5 foot barrier provides minimal sound
attenuation, and a 30 foot barrier is unlikely to be feasible. Nevertheless, these heights are displayed to
show where sound attenuation with a barrier reaches a limit. Therefore, further evaluation of 20 and 30
foot barriers will be investigated. Figure 5 shows the attenuation with 10 foot and 20 foot high barriers
as the sound source is moved farther from the barrier.
Figure 4 – Barrier attenuation with height for source at 10 feet from barrier
Figure 5 – Sound attenuation for 10 and 20 foot barriers for source at 10 and 20 feet from the barrier
These results from Figures 4 and 5 show the following conclusions for barriers.
• The greatest sound reduction with any barrier height occurs closest to the barrier - this is the
shadow zone.
• The sound reduction with a barrier decreases as a receiver is farther from a barrier.
• An increase in barrier height from 5 feet to 10 feet provides an additional 10 dB of sound
reduction.
• Smaller improvements in sound reduction occur with an increase from 10 feet to 20 feet.
• Beyond 20 feet in barrier height, the incremental sound reduction becomes less with barrier
height.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250Added barrier attenuation (dBA)Receiver distance from barrier (ft)
30 foot barrier,
10 ft to source
20 ft barrier,
10 ft to source
10 ft barrier,
10 ft to source
5 foot barrier,
10 ft to source
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250Added barrier attenuation (dBA)Receiver distance from barrier (ft)
20 ft barrier,
10 ft to source
20 ft barrier,
20 ft to source
10 ft barrier,
10 ft to source
10 ft barrier,
20 ft to source
The general guideline for a barrier is that lowest sound level will be measured with a receiver as close
as possible to the highest possible barrier If there are no homes exposed to direct pickleball sound on
any side of a court, then a barrier can be eliminated on that side. In some cases, it may be best to enclose
all four sides of a pickleball court with the highest barrier possible. A detailed acoustical mapping of any
site is recommended to evaluate the noise reduction benefits of any barrier before a purchase is made. A
contractor must be consulted to assure that an existing fence or a new fence can support the added weight
of a barrier. Wind loads on the barrier are also to be considered.
5.2. Higher Barriers
Any increase in the height of an existing barrier will provide more sound reduction. Figure 4 shows that
heights beyond 20 feet will yield lower incremental sound reduction.
5.3. Acoustical Barriers with Sound Absorbing Liners
Acoustical barriers block sound. but this blocked sound is then reflected in the opposite direction. If the
reflected sound must be controlled for receivers in the path of the reflected sound, then barrier walls
with sound absorbing surfaces should be used. The sound absorbing surface includes a weather resistant
fiber covered by a weather resistant, protective, porous cloth. If reflected sound to an opposite side of
the court is a problem, this can add 3 dB of additional noise reduction in this direction.
5.4. Court Reorientation
Changing the court orientation 90 degrees can achieve a small reduction in sound levels due to the
directivity of the pickleball sound. The sound level to the side of a paddle is 3 to 5 dB less than from the
front of the paddle but this is not a constant due to the movement of players on the court. If tennis courts
are being converted to pickleball or new pickleball courts are being considered, then the court orientation
should be considered for sound propagation.
6. PICKLEBALL NOISE CONTROL AT THE RECIVER
6.1. Barriers
Barriers near the receiver provide the same sound attenuation with height and distance as barriers near
the source. Figures 4 and 5 can be used to estimate barrier sound reduction near the source.
6.2. Sound masking
Sound masking is the introduction of a second sound that will override or interfere with the bothersome
sound. Common outdoor masking sounds include the sound from a fountain, a waterfall, ocean waves,
or highway traffic. Masking sound can also be artificially created with speakers to simulate any ambient
sound. For masking sound to be effective with pickleball, it must be 6 to 10 dB or more louder than the
pickleball sound. These masking sounds can literally “swallow up” a lower level offensive sound, but
the offending sound is now replaced by a higher level masking sound. Even at a higher sound level, the
continuous masking sound may be more acceptable than intermittent pickleball impulses. If this is to be
considered, a trial is recommended using a Bluetooth speaker and several masking sounds like a waterfall
or a fountain at different elevated sound levels. This is because the ear can selectively differentiate
between sounds with different tonal characteristics.
7. NOISE MITIGATION COMPARISONS
Table 2 shows a comparison of each noise mitigation strategy at the source, along the path, and at the
receiver. The legend shows how each strategy can be compared. The player and resident reaction are
estimates based on responses experienced from these groups on multiple projects. In some cases,
applying multiple strategies will have an additive effect. This means that 10 dB barrier reduction plus 4
dB paddle reduction plus 2 dB ball reduction can achieve a total reduction of 16 dB – if paddles and
balls can be controlled.
Table 2 – Comparisons of pickleball sound mitigation strategies
The amount of sound mitigation required should always consider an ambient background sound level.
A location near a busy highway or in an industrial zone with a higher ambient sound level than near a
country club or community park will not require as much noise reduction. At a known distance from a
pickleball court, Table 1 shows the sound mitigation required to have pickleball at an acceptable level
depending on background sound level.
The question of whether pickleball can be compatible with residential environments therefore depends
on the distance from the court to the nearest home, on the background sound level, and the sound
mitigation in place. Experience has shown that pickleball courts at 100 feet or less from a home will
require extreme sound control measures to be compatible with a residential environment. Pickleball
courts at 100 or more feet from a home will require moderate sound mitigation for pickleball sound to
be compatible. Pickleball courts at 1000 feet or more from a home will be compatible without any
mitigation required. In some cases, the distance to the nearest home may be too close to allow pickleball
play even with multiple noise reduction strategies in place.
8. CONCLUSIONS
Tests show that a pickleball impact is 4 times louder than a tennis impact and has more high frequency
content. This makes pickleball play on tennis courts a potential noise problem for nearby homes. Noise
ordinances do not properly quantify the sound from pickleball impacts and often understate the level of
Pickleball noise
mitigation strategy
Maximum dB
reduction
Cost
to City
Ease of
Control
Player
Reaction
Resident
Reaction
Control at source
Paddles < 7 dB 0 - - -- + +
Balls < 3 dB 0 - - -+ +
Court time on or off 0 + + +- - -+
Enclosure > 30 dB - - -+ + ++ + ++
Tennis bubble > 20 dB - - -+ + ++ + ++
New site selection unlimited - - -+ + ++ + ++ + +
Control along path
Acoustical barriers 10 ft up to 15 dB - - + + ++ + + +
Higher barriers < 5 dB - - -+ + ++ + +
Barriers with absorption < 3 dB - - -+ + ++ + + +
Site re-orientation < 3 dB - + + ++ + 0
Control at receiver
Acoustical barriers 10 ft up to 15 dB - - + + ++ + + +
Sound masking 6 to 10 dB louder - - + + +0 -
Key Description
+ + +Most favorable
+ + More favorable
+ Favorable
0 Neutral
- Unfavorable
- - More unfavorable
- - -Most unfavorable
this impact. A variable noise limit based on the relationship between LAFmax and background sound
level has been successfully used to evaluate the annoyance of pickleball sound and the amount of sound
mitigation required to avoid annoyance. Several sound mitigation strategies have been described when
sound from pickleball play must be reduced to be compatible with a residential environment. The most
effective strategy is the use of acoustical barriers which must be as tall and as close to the sound source
as possible for maximum effectiveness. Quieter paddles and balls can help reduce noise but may be
difficult to enforce. In general, pickleball courts less than 100 feet from a home will require extreme
sound mitigation measures to be compatible with a residential environment. Pickleball courts more than
100 feet from a home will require one or more sound mitigation measures to not be considered an
annoyance. At 1000 feet or more from a home, pickleball courts will not require any sound mitigation.
As the number of courts increases to meet the needs of avid pickleball players, acoustical engineers must
consider these sound mitigation options for pickleball to be considered a good neighbor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the pickleball players and the communities that have helped to
evaluate and validate these strategies to achieve successful results for pickleball sound.
REFERENCES
1. USA Pickleball, https://usapickleball.org/.
2. Wyerman, B., & Unitech, R., Pickleball Sound 101 – The Statistics of Pickleball Noise and a
Recommended Noise Standard, NoiseCON 2023, Grand Rapids, MI, May 15-18, 2023.
3. Wyerman, B., & Unitech, R., Pickleball Sound 102 – Time History and Spectral Analysis of
Pickleball Sound, NoiseCON 2023, Grand Rapids, MI, May 15-18, 2023.
4. Lucore, J., & Youngren, B., History of Pickleball, More Than 50 years of Fun, Jennifer Lucore, 2018.
5. Green Paddle List – https://springbrook-
hills.com/resources/Documents/Board/Sun%20City%20Green%20Zone%20List.pdf
6. Everest, F., & Pohlmann, K., Master Handbook of Acoustics, 5th edition, McGraw Hill, 1979.
7. https://noisetools.net/dbmap/ - Noise Mapping Tool