Palm Springs code officers cite repeated noise violations at Surf Club; commission asks for living wall, monitoring and follow-up

Code enforcement officials told the Palm Springs Planning Commission that recorded sound-level data shows the Surf Club’s wave-making system and some special events have exceeded the city’s municipal noise limits, and neighbors urged stronger mitigation measures at a public hearing.

At a hearing, Mitch Nabhan, the city’s code enforcement supervisor, described how staff have been monitoring the site since it opened in fall 2024 and said measurements taken from a bike-path location immediately south of the Surf Club’s pump houses showed both compliant and noncompliant “wave profiles.” Nabhan said the city’s noise ordinance sets a 70‑decibel daytime limit (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.) that drops to 60 decibels after 6 p.m., and that the wave system was sometimes logging readings “in the plus 11 to plus 15 decibel range” above the permitted level during evening hours.

The commission heard from more than a dozen residents who live across the wash to the south. Tom Jennings of Tahquitz Creek said “we don’t want the park to fail,” but that the neighborhood has been harmed by persistent noise. Several speakers described base vibration and subwoofer bass during music events; one resident said the wave machine “is so loud that it drowns out the sound of our air conditioning unit” and that their sliding doors vibrate.

Surf Club owner Mara Smith told the commission the business has tried multiple mitigation steps, including sound blankets and structural changes inside the pump-room area and that the business has engaged consultants to explore a 22‑foot living wall and other options. “We absolutely take this serious,” Smith said, and said staff and security log noise readings hourly and that the facility has reached out to neighbors and attended HOA meetings.

Code enforcement said concert-style events in April produced 14 reported concerns over two consecutive weekends (11 reports on weekend one, three on weekend two) and that a notice of violation and a citation were issued related to those findings. Nabhan described how the department collects one-second interval logged readings from a decibel meter placed on the bike path and, when possible, conducts a second measurement near the complaining residence to approximate neighborhood experience.

On enforcement, Nabhan summarized the city’s infraction fine schedule and recent practice: “The fee schedule is codified, with a $100 for citation, $250 for a second, $500 for a third and subsequent.” He said administrative penalties assessed after repeated violations currently start at $500 and can compound for multiple violations.

Commissioners asked about staff response times (code officers generally respond in under 20 minutes when available) and whether the city can use fixed remote monitors. Nabhan said the department has beta-tested fixed devices and that the technology exists, but the department has relied on an officer‑anchored decibel reader because human notes help explain anomalies (planes, cyclists, pedestrians) in the logged data.

After public testimony and questions, commissioners directed staff to accelerate mitigation efforts and to return with results: the commission supported fast-tracking a living wall or equivalent perimeter attenuation and asked staff to work with the Surf Club and its acoustic consultants on additional measures (further acoustic shielding, reconfiguration of equipment rooms and door-closure procedures). Commissioners also asked staff to implement shared monitoring (the applicant agreed to allow city access to its monitoring data) and to return with a progress report in three to six months, with the understanding the return date could be sooner if mitigation work is completed early.

The hearing was informational; the commission did not take formal regulatory action at the meeting. Staff said the item is a 12‑month review and that any change to the Surf Club’s conditional use permit or new, enforceable conditions would require a noticed hearing and formal action at a future date.

What happens next: staff will continue technical review and mitigation planning with the applicant, implement any feasible measures that do not require a reopened CUP, and return to the commission with outcomes and updated monitoring data within the three‑to‑six‑month window the commission requested.

— Key facts in brief: code enforcement measured the Surf Club from the bike path immediately south of the pump houses; daytime limit on the property is 70 decibels (7 a.m.–6 p.m.), dropping to 60 decibels after 6 p.m.; April concert events produced 14 logged complaints and led to a notice of violation and citation; the city’s fine schedule (as stated at the hearing) is $100 for a first citation, $250 for a second, and $500 for third and subsequent infractions.