Cathedral City planning commission approves Mountain View Estates amenity changes; pickleball courts removed from north site

The Cathedral City Planning Commission on Feb. 19 approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment 25-0001 and tentative track map revision 25-0001 for the Mountain View Estates subdivision, a roughly 27-acre, 110–lot single-family project located between Ramon Road and McCallum Way. The commission found no additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review was required and approved the amendment subject to the conditions in the staff report.

The amendment replaces previously planned northern pickleball courts with a relocated turf recreation area and dog park, and adds a southern amenity complex that includes a roughly 5,000-square-foot clubhouse, a 3,000-square-foot fitness center, a shared swimming pool and spa, a children’s play area and shaded seating. The applicant told the commission the changes do not alter the approved lot sizes or residential architecture for the 110 single-family lots.

Dom Camps, associate planner for Cathedral City, told the commission the proposed amendment qualifies as a minor amendment under the city’s municipal code and subdivision ordinance because it retains the basic design concept and does not change the number of approved lots. “Staff recommend that the planning commission find that no additional CEQA review is required,” Camps said, summarizing the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval, which include a requirement that 50% of amenity-area parking spaces be shaded by trees or trellis structures.

Noise from pickleball courts was a focus of the public and commission discussion. Jim Osterling, one of the project owners, told the commission he plays pickleball but supported removing the north-court location because of neighbor concerns about noise. “I love pickleball. I’m a member of a tennis club and we converted one of our seven tennis courts into four pickleball courts,” Osterling said, noting that the sport is space-efficient but can cause neighbor complaints if courts are sited too close to housing.

Commissioners and the applicant discussed redesign options that could allow one or two pickleball courts to be added near the southern clubhouse area where the building and parking might provide a sound buffer. The developer said it would explore whether a reduced clubhouse footprint or small layout adjustments could make room for a court; staff indicated that, if handled through plan check and consistent with the minutes, such a change could be administratively approved rather than requiring a new amendment.

Commissioners also pressed for clarity on operational controls. The applicant said access to the facilities would be restricted to residents and guests behind the community gate and that amenity buildings would use key-card access. Commissioners suggested the homeowners association would manage hours of use; some commission speakers advocated for hours restrictions (for example, not before 8:00 a.m.), but no explicit time-limiting condition was adopted by the commission.

The motion approved the staff recommendation and included a minute order noting that the developer may, at the development services director’s discretion during plan check, (1) replace some palms with canopy shade trees, (2) reconfigure or squeeze in one or two pickleball courts adjacent to the clubhouse without further public hearing, and (3) make minor lot-line or street-alignment adjustments so long as the volume of the water retention/detention basin is not reduced. The commission recorded a unanimous vote in favor of the amendment.

The amendment preserves the previously approved Spanish-style architecture and material palette for the project; amenity buildings were shown with 19-foot heights (within the R-1 zone’s 26-foot maximum). The revised landscaping plan calls for desert-appropriate species and limits turf to recreation areas. Staff consolidated prior conditions of approval into the current conditions; the only new condition identified by staff was the 50% shaded-parking requirement for amenity areas.

The planning commission’s action allows the project to proceed to plan check and building permit submittal with the approved amenity changes and the noted administrative flexibility. The record and the staff report indicate the commission treated the PUD amendment as a minor revision under city rules and did not require an additional noticed public hearing.