Commission sends proposed 16‑court pickleball complex back for more study on noise, parking and circulation

The Palm Springs Planning Commission on Tuesday continued without final action a proposal for a 16‑court commercial pickleball complex near Palm Springs International Airport, directing the applicant to address engineering, parking and noise concerns before the project returns to the commission.

The applicant, identified in filings as PPUSA LLC, sought approval for a major development permit and a minor modification to build a 16‑court facility — 13 competition courts and three recreation courts — on an approximately 1.78‑acre site at the southwest corner of Avenida Evelita and Airport Center Drive, fronting Ramon Road. The proposal included a roughly 1,200‑square‑foot concessions and administrative building, on‑site parking (55 spaces as shown, with a requested administrative reduction), shade landscaping and a 10‑foot perimeter play fence required by code for sports courts.

City planning staff described the site as M‑1 zoning with a neighborhood community commercial general plan designation, and said the project conforms with the airport land‑use compatibility master plan. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions and said the project was categorically exempt from CEQA in the materials provided to commissioners.

Commission discussion focused on three clusters of concern: noise, site circulation and parking, and the materials and height of perimeter walls and court fencing.

On noise, commissioners and members of the public raised questions about pickleball’s sound characteristics and whether the proposed fence and landscaping would sufficiently reduce sound to meet the city’s noise ordinance and protect nearby low‑density residential uses. The facility’s proposed hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.; several commissioners asked whether earlier morning (6–7 a.m.) and later evening (10–11 p.m.) hours should be curtailed or subject to additional mitigation. Staff noted the site sits where the general plan’s noise contours already show elevated ambient levels from Ramon Road and nearby airport activity and that industrial and commercial zoning have higher permissible noise limits than residential zones.

The applicant representatives — urban planner Max Stewart and architect Mark Stewart — said they had not retained an acoustic consultant and preferred a combined masonry wall and decorative metal picket fence with a mesh insert to reduce wind and retain balls. “We believe that a combination of masonry and open provides the least amount of echo potential,” Mark Stewart said. The applicants said they were open to design changes and to study alternatives but said full shade structures across courts were not in the initial budget.

On circulation and parking, engineering staff flagged that the primary driveway as drawn would have to be adjusted to meet corner clearance requirements and that a “pork‑chop” curb element at the Ramon/Evelita intersection appeared drawn differently in engineering mapping and the project plans; commissioners asked the applicant and city engineering to confirm whether left‑in access or other intersection modifications would be required. Commissioners also questioned a long run of bay (angled) parking along Airport Center Drive and suggested exploring counting existing street parking in lieu of bay parking to reduce on‑site impervious area and improve street character.

After extended discussion the commission voted to continue the item to a date uncertain and directed the applicant to: provide a technical acoustical analysis comparing the proposed masonry/metal/mesh fence design with an 8‑foot masonry wall and other mitigation options; resolve engineering driveway, circulation and stormwater/detention details with city engineering; refine the parking plan (including alternatives to the proposed bay parking) and provide a clear proposal for curb access at Avenida Evelita and Ramon Road; present refined landscape plans that consider heavy hedges and shade options; and consider operational mitigations for early‑morning and late‑evening hours. The commission also asked staff to coordinate review with airport land‑use conditions and to share any relevant findings from the parks department’s work on pickleball citywide.

The roll call on the continuation was 6‑1 (one commissioner opposed). The commission’s action leaves the project concept in place but requires further technical work before a final decision.