Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City of Irvine Staff,

We are Irvine residents and regular users of the City's public tennis facilities. We are writing to formally express our concerns regarding newly posted tennis court regulations at community parks and the limited availability of public courts at the Great Park Tennis Center.

Tennis is an important form of physical activity that promotes cardiovascular health, physical fitness, mental well-being, and social connection. Public recreational facilities should provide residents with reasonable opportunities to participate in sports, maintain healthy lifestyles, and enjoy their community. We believe the City's current approach to court time limits and the allocation of facilities for lessons and coaching warrants a thorough review to ensure that public tennis courts remain accessible and serve the needs of the broader community.

We are organizing a petition supported by hundreds of concerned residents who share these concerns. We respectfully request that the City review the following issues and take meaningful action to improve public access to tennis facilities.

1. Reconsider the New 30-Minute Limit for Individual Practice and Singles Play
We are deeply concerned about newly posted tennis court regulations at Irvine community courts that limit both individual tennis practice and singles play to just 30 minutes. These restrictions significantly limit residents' ability to use public tennis facilities for meaningful exercise, skill development, and recreational play.

Equally concerning is that the City's published Court Regulations and Map appears outdated and does not accurately reflect the new rules posted at the courts. This discrepancy creates confusion among residents about which regulations are in effect and raises concerns about transparency, communication, and consistent enforcement. Residents should not have to rely on posted signs that contradict or differ from the information provided on the City's official website.

A 30-minute limit is unreasonably restrictive for both individual practice and singles matches. Tennis is a physically demanding sport that requires sufficient time for warm-up, movement, sustained play, and conditioning. Thirty minutes may be insufficient for a meaningful practice session, particularly when warm-up time is included. For singles players, the restriction can interrupt a recreational match before players have had a reasonable opportunity to enjoy a complete playing session.

These restrictions risk discouraging residents from participating in tennis regularly, undermining the broader goals of promoting public health, physical fitness, and an active lifestyle. Individual practice and singles play are legitimate forms of recreation and exercise and should not be treated as less deserving of court access than doubles play or organized programs.

We recognize the importance of sharing public facilities, particularly when other players are waiting. However, a rigid time limit does not necessarily improve court utilization when no one is waiting to play. A flexible, demand-based policy would better balance the interests of current players and residents seeking access.

We respectfully request that the City:

Reconsider the newly implemented 30-minute limit for singles play.
Allow singles matches to continue beyond 60 minutes when no other players are waiting for a court.
Establish a reasonable, transparent court-rotation policy that ensures fair access without unnecessarily interrupting recreational exercise.
Explain the rationale, effective date, and enforcement procedures for the new restrictions.
Promptly update the City's official website to accurately reflect the regulations currently posted at community courts.
Provide residents with an opportunity to offer feedback before implementing future changes that materially affect public recreational access.
Public tennis courts should encourage residents to stay active and enjoy recreational sports, not impose unnecessarily restrictive limits that make meaningful participation difficult. We urge the City to reconsider these changes and adopt a fairer, more practical policy.

2. Ensure Fair Public Access to Courts at the Great Park Tennis Center
We are also concerned about the difficulty Irvine residents face in finding available courts for casual recreational tennis at the Great Park Tennis Center.

The Great Park Tennis Center is a significant public recreational resource serving residents with a variety of needs, including lessons, camps, leagues, tournaments, and casual play. However, residents have experienced difficulty obtaining courts for ordinary recreational use when substantial court capacity is occupied by lessons, coaching, and organized programming.

We support tennis instruction, youth development, and programs that introduce more people to the sport. Our concern is not with the existence of these programs, but with whether the current allocation of public courts adequately balances organized activities with the needs of residents who simply want to play tennis independently or with friends.

Public recreational facilities should serve the broader community, including working adults, recreational players, families, beginners, and residents who cannot afford ongoing private instruction. Residents should not feel that paid lessons or organized programs are the only reliable ways to access public tennis facilities.

When public courts are difficult to access for ordinary recreational play, the City should examine whether its scheduling and allocation practices are adequately serving the community.

We respectfully request that the City:

Conduct a review of how courts at the Great Park Tennis Center are allocated among private lessons, coaching, City-sponsored programs, leagues, reservations, and public drop-in play.
Disclose the general schedule and number of courts allocated to instructional and organized activities compared with courts available for public recreational use.
Establish a reasonable minimum level of court availability for public drop-in play, particularly during peak recreational hours.
Review whether the current allocation of courts gives sufficient consideration to the needs of residents who do not participate in organized programs or paid lessons.
Evaluate actual court utilization and adjust allocations when public demand for recreational play is not being adequately met.
Publish clear information explaining how courts are allocated and how residents can access available courts.
We believe that organized tennis programs and public recreational play can coexist. However, public facilities should be managed in a way that ensures residents retain meaningful opportunities to use the courts for the recreational purposes for which they are intended.

3. Improve Transparency and Consistency in Tennis Court Regulations
The City's published Court Regulations and Map is an important resource for residents seeking to understand court-use requirements. However, the newly posted regulations at community courts appear to differ from the information currently available online.

This inconsistency makes it difficult for residents to understand the rules, plan their recreational activities, and determine how time limits are being enforced. It also creates uncertainty about whether the new restrictions represent a formal City policy change and whether the changes have been adequately communicated to the public.

Residents deserve clear, accurate, and consistent information regarding the use of public facilities. Any material changes to tennis court regulations should be explained, published, and communicated in a timely manner.

We respectfully request that the City:

Review the regulations currently posted at all relevant community tennis courts and compare them with the official online rules.
Ensure that on-site signs, online regulations, and actual enforcement practices are consistent.
Explain when the new 30-minute limits for individual practice and singles play were adopted and why the changes were considered necessary.
Provide the data, analysis, or operational rationale supporting the restrictions, including any assessment of court demand and utilization.
Establish a clear process for notifying residents of future changes and receiving public feedback.
We believe transparency and public engagement are essential to maintaining trust between residents and the City, particularly when new restrictions affect access to taxpayer-supported recreational facilities.

4. Establish a Balanced, Resident-Centered Tennis Court Policy
We believe Irvine can support organized tennis instruction while maintaining accessible public recreational facilities for residents.

Tennis players use public courts for many legitimate purposes. Some participate in structured lessons, while others practice independently, play singles or doubles matches, exercise with friends, or introduce family members to the sport. All of these activities contribute to a healthy, active community.

A balanced court-use policy should recognize these different needs and promote the efficient use of public facilities. It should avoid unnecessarily restricting recreational play when courts are available and ensure that organized programming does not disproportionately limit access for residents who wish to play casually.

We encourage the City to consider a more flexible, demand-based approach to time limits, alongside a transparent court-allocation policy that protects reasonable opportunities for public drop-in play.

We also request that the City engage with residents and the local tennis community before implementing substantial changes to public court regulations or allocation practices.

5. Requested Actions and Formal Response
In light of the concerns outlined above, we respectfully request that the City of Irvine take the following actions:

Review the 30-minute time limits: Reconsider the new restrictions for both individual practice and singles play, with the goal of allowing continued play when no other players are waiting.
Review Great Park court allocations: Assess the balance between coaching, lessons, organized programming, and public recreational access, and establish reasonable safeguards for drop-in play.
Correct outdated public information: Update the City's official website so that published regulations accurately reflect the rules in effect at community courts.
Improve policy transparency: Explain the rationale, effective date, and enforcement procedures for the new restrictions and provide relevant court utilization or allocation information.
Engage the community: Provide residents with an opportunity to participate in a public discussion or submit feedback regarding tennis court regulations and access.
Develop a fair and practical policy: Establish clear, consistent, and equitable rules that promote physical activity while balancing demand for public tennis courts.
Provide a written response: Respond to this petition with the City's findings, the rationale for the current policies, and any planned changes or additional measures to improve public access.
We respectfully ask that this petition be acknowledged and referred to the appropriate City departments for review. Given the number of residents affected, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues with City representatives and work collaboratively toward a solution.

Conclusion
As residents of Irvine, we value the City's investment in public recreational facilities and want these facilities to remain accessible, welcoming, and beneficial to the entire community.

Our request is not to eliminate reasonable court-use rules or oppose tennis instruction. Rather, we seek fair, transparent, and practical policies that encourage physical activity, support individual practice and singles play, and preserve meaningful access to public tennis courts for residents of all ages and skill levels.

Public tennis facilities should be managed in the interests of the entire community. Residents who wish to exercise, practice, and play recreational tennis should have reasonable opportunities to do so without facing unnecessarily restrictive time limits or difficulty accessing courts because of the allocation of facilities to organized programming.

We are prepared to submit this petition with signatures from hundreds of concerned residents. We respectfully urge the City Council and relevant departments to review these concerns, explain the reasoning behind the current policies, and work with the tennis community toward a fair and sustainable solution.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response and to the City's continued commitment to supporting the health, well-being, and recreational needs of Irvine residents.

Sincerely,

Concerned Irvine Residents and Public Tennis Court Users