HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 06-16-2026 Item No. 6. FY 26-27 Operating and Capital Improvements Budget_Written Communications (2)1
Lauren Sapudar
From:Tragic Bronson <yhsdude@protonmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 3:19 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; Sheila Mohan; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Public Comment 25-14462 Agenda 6 FY 26-27 Remove $150,000 Pickleball Sound
Attenuation Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
This written comment concerns the FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program Budget and, specifically,
the proposed $150,000 allocation for Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation.
Pickleball noise is a real operational and residential-impact issue. However, the City should not solve an
acoustic problem by creating a public-safety, first-responder, and line-of-sight problem inside a public
park.
The issue is not whether sound attenuation should be studied. The issue is whether the City may approve
funding for a sound barrier or reinforced fence without first requiring a documented review of police
visibility, fire/EMS access, paramedic sightlines, natural surveillance, and emergency response
conditions.
Memorial Park’s courts are located along Christensen Drive. Any solid, opaque, or near-opaque sound
barrier installed along the courts could materially reduce visibility from the street, sidewalk, parking
approach, park pathways, and surrounding public areas. That matters because a transparent chain-link
court fence is not merely a boundary. It allows police, firefighters, paramedics, park staff, neighbors, and
passersby to see what is happening inside the courts before entering.
A solid acoustic barrier changes that condition.
If a player collapses from heat stress, cardiac distress, a fall, stroke symptoms, dehydration, or another
medical emergency, a responding paramedic should be able to see into the court area from Christensen
Drive or from the nearest public access route. The responder should not have to physically enter a
visually blocked enclosure before determining where the patient is, whether the patient is conscious,
whether bystanders are assisting, or whether there are additional hazards inside.
This concern is especially important because pickleball is heavily used by older adults. The City should
not create a condition where elderly users are playing inside a visually screened court area and first
responders cannot immediately assess medical distress from outside the fence.
The same issue applies to law enforcement. Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s
Office for police services. Deputies responding to calls at Memorial Park should be able to visually
assess the court area before entering. A transparent chain-link fence allows officers to observe activity,
2
locate people, assess whether a disturbance is occurring, identify gates and access points, and
determine whether the scene appears safe before entry. A tall solid barrier can force deputies into a
blind approach to gates, corners, and enclosed areas.
That is not merely an aesthetic concern. It is an officer-safety and public-safety concern.
The City should also consider natural surveillance. Public parks are safer when ordinary users,
pedestrians, neighbors, nearby drivers, park staff, and patrol personnel can observe activity. Visibility
discourages after-hours misuse, vandalism, harassment, assaults, drug or alcohol use, and other unsafe
conditions. If the City wraps a public court area with solid or near-solid sound panels, it may reduce
noise while also creating a public-safety blind spot.
That tradeoff should not be approved casually through a budget line item.
Before any procurement, product selection, bid package, or installation, the City should require a
written, site-specific review by:
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office;
Fire/EMS and paramedic response personnel;
Parks and Recreation operations staff;
Public Works;
Building or structural review staff;
Risk Management or the City Attorney’s Office.
That review should specifically address:
visibility into the courts from Christensen Drive;
visibility from the sidewalk, parking approach, and surrounding park pathways;
gate location, emergency access, and whether responders can locate a patient or threat before entry;
whether the barrier creates hidden corners, dead zones, or blind approaches;
nighttime visibility and lighting conditions;
wind load and structural safety of any reinforced fence;
whether the design preserves natural surveillance;
whether transparent acoustic panels, partial-height panels, partial-side treatment, operational controls,
quieter equipment, or delayed implementation through the Memorial Park Master Plan renovation
schedule would be safer alternatives.
If the Sheriff’s Office or Fire/EMS concludes there is no public-safety concern, that conclusion should be
documented in writing and tied to the actual proposed design, including height, opacity, location, gate
configuration, and sightlines from Christensen Drive. A generic “no concern” response would not be
sufficient because the safety issue is design-specific.
This is particularly important because the City is already facing significant law-enforcement cost
pressures through the Sheriff’s contract. If Cupertino is paying a premium for contracted police services,
the City should not simultaneously approve park infrastructure that makes police and emergency
response more difficult.
The City should also avoid treating this as an isolated pickleball project when Memorial Park is already
subject to broader long-term planning. If the line-of-sight and emergency-visibility issues cannot be
resolved in the current court location, then pickleball sound attenuation should wait for the established
3
Memorial Park Master Plan renovation schedule, where court placement, orientation, setbacks,
circulation, emergency access, noise mitigation, and visibility can be resolved comprehensively.
Noise mitigation is valid. But it cannot come at the expense of police visibility, paramedic sightlines,
natural surveillance, and first-responder safety.
I respectfully request that the Council not approve the Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation
project as an open-ended authorization for solid fencing or opaque acoustic panels. At minimum,
Council should direct staff to return with a written first-responder and line-of-sight review before any
barrier product or fence design is selected.
The City should not allow a $150,000 CIP item to become a blank check for a wall-like enclosure around
public courts without first answering the basic public-safety question:
Can police, paramedics, park staff, and the public still see what is happening inside? If not, the City
should not incur unnecessary risks and plan programming in a more deliberate manner rather than
forcing a round peg into a square hole.
There is no such thing as total public entitlement. Do not let a few loud and persistent activities advocate
needlessly inflict more harm to the public with installing ill-advised equipment and inadvertently creating
unintended consequences.
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:Tragic Bronson <yhsdude@protonmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 3:10 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang;
tkapoor@cupertino.gov
Subject:Public Comment 25-14462 Agenda 6 FY 26-27 Remove $150,000 Pickleball Sound
Attenuation Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
This written comment concerns the FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program Budget and, specifically,
the proposed $150,000 allocation for Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation.
Pickleball noise is a real operational and residential-impact issue. However, the City should not solve an
acoustic problem by creating a public-safety, first-responder, and line-of-sight problem inside a public
park.
The issue is not whether sound attenuation should be studied. The issue is whether the City may approve
funding for a sound barrier or reinforced fence without first requiring a documented review of police
visibility, fire/EMS access, paramedic sightlines, natural surveillance, and emergency response
conditions.
Memorial Park’s courts are located along Christensen Drive. Any solid, opaque, or near-opaque sound
barrier installed along the courts could materially reduce visibility from the street, sidewalk, parking
approach, park pathways, and surrounding public areas. That matters because a transparent chain-link
court fence is not merely a boundary. It allows police, firefighters, paramedics, park staff, neighbors, and
passersby to see what is happening inside the courts before entering.
A solid acoustic barrier changes that condition.
If a player collapses from heat stress, cardiac distress, a fall, stroke symptoms, dehydration, or another
medical emergency, a responding paramedic should be able to see into the court area from Christensen
Drive or from the nearest public access route. The responder should not have to physically enter a
visually blocked enclosure before determining where the patient is, whether the patient is conscious,
whether bystanders are assisting, or whether there are additional hazards inside.
This concern is especially important because pickleball is heavily used by older adults. The City should
not create a condition where elderly users are playing inside a visually screened court area and first
responders cannot immediately assess medical distress from outside the fence.
2
The same issue applies to law enforcement. Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s
Office for police services. Deputies responding to calls at Memorial Park should be able to visually
assess the court area before entering. A transparent chain-link fence allows officers to observe activity,
locate people, assess whether a disturbance is occurring, identify gates and access points, and
determine whether the scene appears safe before entry. A tall solid barrier can force deputies into a
blind approach to gates, corners, and enclosed areas.
That is not merely an aesthetic concern. It is an officer-safety and public-safety concern.
The City should also consider natural surveillance. Public parks are safer when ordinary users,
pedestrians, neighbors, nearby drivers, park staff, and patrol personnel can observe activity. Visibility
discourages after-hours misuse, vandalism, harassment, assaults, drug or alcohol use, and other unsafe
conditions. If the City wraps a public court area with solid or near-solid sound panels, it may reduce
noise while also creating a public-safety blind spot.
That tradeoff should not be approved casually through a budget line item.
Before any procurement, product selection, bid package, or installation, the City should require a
written, site-specific review by:
1. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office;
2. Fire/EMS and paramedic response personnel;
3. Parks and Recreation operations staff;
4. Public Works;
5. Building or structural review staff;
6. Risk Management or the City Attorney’s Office.
That review should specifically address:
1. visibility into the courts from Christensen Drive;
2. visibility from the sidewalk, parking approach, and surrounding park pathways;
3. gate location, emergency access, and whether responders can locate a patient or threat before
entry;
4. whether the barrier creates hidden corners, dead zones, or blind approaches;
5. nighttime visibility and lighting conditions;
6. wind load and structural safety of any reinforced fence;
7. whether the design preserves natural surveillance;
8. whether transparent acoustic panels, partial-height panels, partial-side treatment, operational
controls, quieter equipment, or delayed implementation through the Memorial Park Master Plan
renovation schedule would be safer alternatives.
If the Sheriff’s Office or Fire/EMS concludes there is no public-safety concern, that conclusion should be
documented in writing and tied to the actual proposed design, including height, opacity, location, gate
configuration, and sightlines from Christensen Drive. A generic “no concern” response would not be
sufficient because the safety issue is design-specific.
This is particularly important because the City is already facing significant law-enforcement cost
pressures through the Sheriff’s contract. If Cupertino is paying a premium for contracted police services,
3
the City should not simultaneously approve park infrastructure that makes police and emergency
response more difficult.
The City should also avoid treating this as an isolated pickleball project when Memorial Park is already
subject to broader long-term planning. If the line-of-sight and emergency-visibility issues cannot be
resolved in the current court location, then pickleball sound attenuation should wait for the established
Memorial Park Master Plan renovation schedule, where court placement, orientation, setbacks,
circulation, emergency access, noise mitigation, and visibility can be resolved comprehensively.
Noise mitigation is valid. But it cannot come at the expense of police visibility, paramedic sightlines,
natural surveillance, and first-responder safety.
I respectfully request that the Council not approve the Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation
project as an open-ended authorization for solid fencing or opaque acoustic panels. At minimum,
Council should direct staff to return with a written first-responder and line-of-sight review before any
barrier product or fence design is selected.
The City should not allow a $150,000 CIP item to become a blank check for a wall-like enclosure around
public courts without first answering the basic public-safety question:
Can police, paramedics, park staff, and the public still see what is happening inside? If not, the City
should not incur unnecessary risks and plan programming in a more deliberate manner rather than
forcing a round peg into a square hole.
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:Mahesh Gurikar <mgurikar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 2:49 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Subject:Cupertino Budget Issues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Just a few years ago Cuper no was considered a well managed city with budget surplus.
Over the years the situa on has changed and now we are facing a deficit and looking at reducing services which will
affect the quality of life of Cuper no residents.
We need to reduce waste and increase produc vity and use resources more effec vely. Spending money on new bike
lanes, building or remodeling the City Hall, funding construc on of villas on Mary Avenue, And many other projects
should be put on hold or cancelled en rely.
Even before Cuper no became known for Apple Headquarters it was known for its excellent schools and as a very
desirable place to live.
I hope you will make Cuper no a well managed, safe and livable city again.
Mahesh Gurikar
Cuper no Resident
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:Zak Wilson <zak@sportsurfaces.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 11:02 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Susan Michael; Tink@cupertino.gov; Kirsten
Squarcia
Subject:Re: Pickleball Noise Mitigation Solution for Cupertino Memorial Park
Attachments:Sonic Guard Brochures.pdf; QA-5523a - Sport Surfaces - Sonic guard - ASTM E90 -
12192025.pdf; Yacht Club Sonic Guard Study.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include this written comment for the upcoming Cupertino City Council meeting regarding the Memorial
Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation CIP.
As communities across California continue to experience the tremendous growth of pickleball, many cities are
facing the challenge of balancing recreational opportunities with the quality of life concerns of nearby residents.
The discussion surrounding Memorial Park highlights a challenge that numerous municipalities, HOAs, and
park districts are currently navigating: preserving court access while addressing legitimate noise concerns from
neighboring properties.
In evaluating potential mitigation measures, I encourage the City Council to consider physical sound attenuation
solutions in addition to operational restrictions such as reduced playing hours. Sound mitigation barriers have
been successfully implemented in various communities throughout the United States to help reduce the
transmission of pickleball paddle-impact noise to adjacent residential areas.
Acoustic barrier systems can provide a proactive approach that allows communities to maintain access to courts
while reducing the impact on nearby residents. This approach may help avoid more restrictive measures that
could limit recreational opportunities for players, families, seniors, and community members who rely on these
facilities.
As the City evaluates long-term solutions, I encourage consideration of engineered sound attenuation systems,
acoustic testing data, and real-world case studies from communities that have implemented noise mitigation
measures around pickleball facilities.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Zak Wilson
Sales Executive
Sport Surfaces
2
7011 Wilson Rd.
WPB, FL. 33413
Office: 1-561-964-2001
Direct: 407-752-9830
From: Zak Wilson <zak@sportsurfaces.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:34 PM
To: Planningcommission@cupertino.gov <Planningcommission@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Chadm@cupertino.gov <Chadm@cupertino.gov>; Susanm@cupertino.gov <Susanm@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Pickleball Noise Mitigation Solution for Cupertino Memorial Park
Hello,
As pickleball continues growing across the Bay Area, Cupertino is facing the same challenge many cities are
now wrestling with:
How do you preserve access to one of the fastest-growing community sports while meaningfully
addressing neighborhood noise concerns?
At Memorial Park, the concern is understandable.
The repetitive paddle impact noise is unique, highly noticeable, and different from tennis. Nearby residents feel
it daily. At the same time, the courts have become a major community gathering point with real social value.
That balance matters.
The good news is: communities do not always need to choose between restricting play and doing nothing.
Sonic Guard was developed specifically for this exact challenge.
Sonic Guard is a purpose-built acoustic barrier system engineered for pickleball and tennis environments where
surrounding residential impact has become a serious concern.
Instead of relying only on reduced play hours, court removal, or major site reconstruction, Sonic Guard helps
reduce paddle impact noise at the source before it reaches surrounding homes.
Key benefits:
Reduces the sharp “pop” associated with pickleball paddle impact
Helps absorb and interrupt sound before it carries outward
3
Preserves court access and recreational use
Integrates with existing fencing and park layouts
Supports long-term mitigation planning without major demolition
Product Options
Sonic Guard Ultra
Up to 44 dB noise reduction
Best for:
active neighborhood complaints
city review / planning discussions
closest residential setbacks
projects requiring strongest mitigation available
Sonic Guard Pro
Up to 28 dB noise reduction
Best for:
public courts
HOA and park applications
strong acoustic performance with efficient coverage
Sonic Guard Clear Vision
Up to 14 dB noise reduction
Best for:
maintaining visibility
preserving aesthetics
adding sound reduction without visually closing off the space
For cities like Cupertino evaluating Memorial Park and long-term solutions, acoustic barriers can provide a
practical middle ground:
Protect neighborhood quality of life while keeping the courts active and accessible.
Attached for review:
Sonic Guard Product Brochure
Lab Test Results / Acoustic Performance Data
Case Study / Real-World Installation Reference
We would be happy to review:
court layout
residential setback distances
fence elevations
existing sound studies
and recommended placement options
And provide a tailored recommendation based on the site.
4
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
Zak Wilson
Sales Executive
Sport Surfaces/Sport Sonic Guard
7011 Wilson Rd.
WPB, FL. 33413
Office: 1-561-964-2001
Direct: 407-752-9830
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture from the Internet.
8148 NW 74 Avenue
Medley, FL, 33166
305.885.3328 ph. | 305.885.3329 fx
"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from
QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless
specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report,
as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
info@qai.org
CLIENT: Sports Surfaces LLC
12851 SW 133 ST
Miami, Florida 33186
Project No: QA-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025
SAMPLE ID: Series: Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 4’-0’’ (48”) Width x 10’-0’’ (120”) High; See page 3 for full description.
SAMPLING DETAIL: The test sample manufactured by Sports Surfaces LLC was submitted directly to QAI by the
client. Samples were not independently selected for testing.
DATE OF RECEIPT: Samples were received at the QAI Miami Laboratories on November 24, 2025
TESTING PERIOD: December 19, 2025
TESTING LOCATION: QAI Laboratory (QAI) – Miami, Florida, USA
AUTHORIZATION: QAI proposal number QAI-4933 dated November 17, 2025, signed by Verena Burner, dated
November 20, 2025
TEST PROCEDURE: Testing to the following requirements:
ASTM E90 -09 (reapproved 2016) Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of
Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements
ASTM E2235-04Standard Test Method for Determination of Decay Rates for Use in Sound
Insulation Test Methods
ASTM E413-22 Classification for Rating Sound Insulation
ASTM E1332-16 Standard Classification for Rating Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation
TEST RESULTS: The Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System was tested in accordance with the ASTM E90,
ASTM E2235, ASTM E413, and ASTM E1332 and achieved an STC31/OITC26.
CONTENTS: Test report pages 1 through 5.
Prepared By Signed for and on behalf of QAI Laboratories
Lusinda Delgado Jose Sanchez
Technical Report Writer Operation Manager
Lusinda Delgado
Prin
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
n
e
-
s
i
g
n
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025
Page 2 of 5
"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from
QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless
specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report,
as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
info@qai.org
Table of Contents
Sample A-1 Page Rev
Description of Test Sample 3
Panel Construction 3
Equipment 4
Test Chamber Dimensions 4
Results Sample A-1
Acoustical Test ASTM E90 4
Revision Table 5
Remarks Table 5
Technician:
Ian McGinley
Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025
Page 3 of 5
"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from
QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless
specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report,
as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
info@qai.org
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE
Model Desi nation: Sonic Guard coustic Barrier S stem
Overall Size: 4’-0’’ 48” Width x 10’-0’’ 120” Hi h
Panel Construction
Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025
Page 4 of 5
"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from
QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless
specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report,
as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
info@qai.org
Equipment
Instrument Manufacture Model Description
Pressure microphone Norsonic 1230 Microphone
Oscillatin microphone boom Norsonic N265 Rotatin microphone
Loud speaker JBL SR4733 Speaker
mplifier s stem QSC RMX1850-HD mplifier
Dual band equalizer DBX DBX-1231 Equalizer
Test Chamber Dimensions
Receivin Room 7875 ft³
Source Room 6840 ft³
Room Conditions: 79.5 °F R.H: 57% ATM: 1017 hPa
Data
Table
TL
db deficiencies 95%
CI
80 26 - 0.84
100 19 - 1.25
125 17 0 0.65
160 25 0 0.54
200 24 0 0.55
250 25 0 0.32
315 26 1 0.38
400 27 3 0.42
500 26 5 0.39
630 27 5 0.45
800 27 6 0.34
1000 30 4 0.22
1250 32 3 0.17
1600 34 1 0.22
2000 38 0 0.09
2500 40 0 0.15
3150 42 0 0.10
4000 44 - 0.15
Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025
Page 5 of 5
"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from
QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless
specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report,
as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
info@qai.org
Notes
QAI does not have, nor does it intend to acquire or will acquire, a financial interest in any company manufacturing or
distributing products tested or labeled by QAI. QAI is not owned, operated or controlled by any company
manufacturing or distributing products it tests or labels.
Drawings referenced in this document are an integral part of this report, therefore, are required when distributing this
test report. Test results obtained represent the actual value of the tested specimens and do not constitute opinion,
endorsement or certification b this laborator .
Test Procedure
Samples were installed in a 120 1/2" by 48 1/2" wall opening and were approximately 1/2" from flush with the
receive room side of the wall. A filler panel was installed in the wall opening and a sound transmission loss test was
initially performed on the wall. Duct seal was used to seal the interior and exterior of the test samples to the wall
opening.
The sensitivity of the microphones was checked with a calibrator before testing was performed.
The sound transmission loss values were obtained for a single direction.
Five measurements were conducted for the sound pressure level, background noise and sound absorption.
Measurements were collected at each rotating microphone.
Data for flanking limit tests, repeatability measurements and reference specimen tests are available on request.
REVISION HISTORY:
12/19/2025: Initial report release
*******END REPORT*******
Studio Shodwe
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
CASE STUDY
YACHT CLUB ON THE
INTRACOASTAL
FROM NOISE CRISIS TOCOMMUNITY HARMONY IN60 DAYS
Location: 160 Yacht Club Way, Hypoluxo, FL 33462
Property: 300-unit waterfront condominium
community, 26 acres on the Intracoastal Challenge:
Pickleball court noise threatening litigation and
property values Solution: 48 Sport Sonic Guard
panels, full perimeter installation Result: 75% noise
reduction, zero complaints, $200K+ property value
protected
The Problem
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Premium gated community with 300+ units, marina, resort amenities,
and active lifestyle facilities. Mix of full-time residents and seasonal
owners seeking waterfront tranquility.
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
THE CRISIS
Complaints Received:
60+ formal noise complaints from residents in 5 buildings 3 litigation
threats
from unit owners 20+ residents demanding immediate court
closure 2 seasonal owners threatening not to return
Sound Measurements (Before):
Building 160 (80-120 ft away): 68-72 dB during play Buildings 145/157
(150-180 ft): 62-66 dB during play Buildings 103/110 (180-220 ft): 58-
62 dB during play Background ambient: 42-48 dB (waterfront quiet)
Impact: Pickleball noise was 15-25 dB above background—conversation-disrupting
and psychologically intrusive.Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
FAILED SOLUTIONS
Time restrictions (10 AM-6
PM only) → Still too loud
"Quiet paddle"
requirements → Only 2-3
dB improvement
Posted "considerate play"
signs → Ignored,
unenforceable Player
education letters → Ineffective
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
FINANCIAL
STAKES
Legal consultation fees: $8,500 Units listed below
market due to noise: 2 units (-$15K-25K each)
Original court conversion investment at risk: $45,000
Potential litigation exposure: $15K-30K
Board faced impossible choice: Close courts (waste
$45K investment) or face lawsuits.
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
THE SOLUTION:
SPORT SONIC
GUARD
Acoustic Challenges Identified:
Multi-directional exposure (courts centered
among buildings)
Hard surface amplification (concrete, asphalt,
water reflection)
Mid-rise buildings (3-4 stories) = elevated units
in direct sound path
Intracoastal water surface reflecting sound back
into community
Assessment & Design
Read More
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
THE SOLUTION:
SPORT SONIC
GUARD
48 Sport Sonic Guard panels (4' W × 10' H
each) 192 linear feet (full perimeter enclosure)
STC-31/OITC-26 rated (ASTM E90 certified)
10-foot height critical for protecting upper
floors Three-phase installation over 3 weeks
System Design:
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
THE RESULTS
Noise reduced from "intrusive conversation-disrupting" to
"quiet library/barely noticeable"
Building 160 (80-120 ft)
Buildings 145/157 (150-180 ft)
Buildings 103/110 (180-220 ft)
68-72 dB
62-66 dB
58-62 dB
35-42 dB
32-38 dB
30-36 dB
Location Before After
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
COMMUNITY IMPACT
Complaint Resolution:
Formal complaints before: 60+ over 2 months
Formal complaints after: 0 over 9+ months
Litigation threats before: 3 residents Litigation threats
after: 0 100% resolution rate
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
RESIDENT TESTIMONIALS
Building 160, Unit 303 (Most Vocal Complainant): "We
cannot believe the difference. We were skeptical any barrier
could work, but we can now sit on our balcony and barely
hear the games. The HOA did the right thing."
Building 157, Unit 308 (Work-from-home Professional):
"I can now work from home with zero disruption. Even
with my balcony door open, I hear nothing. The
investment was worth every penny
Diam donec adipiscing tristique risus nec feugiat in
fermentum.
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
KEY
TAKEAWAYS
Complete resolution of 60+ complaints
and 3 litigation threats
75% noise reduction verified by post-
installation testin
g $200K+ property value protected from
noise-related depreciation
Tour Guide
ero ongoing complaints 9+ months after installation
Courts transformed from liability to amenity generating
revenue
300-500% ROI through cost avoidance and value
protection
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson