The Palm Springs Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a proposed 16‑court, lighted pickleball complex by PPUSA LLC at the southeast corner of Avenida Ivelita and Airport Center Drive, the commission announced after a public hearing and staff presentation.

Staff told the commission the project includes 16 courts (13 competition‑sized, three recreational), about 55 off‑street parking spaces with decorative bay paving and EV chargers, and a roughly 1,200‑square‑foot building for a reservation desk, concessions and restrooms. Staff said the applicant requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to reduce the city’s 60‑foot lighting setback to 10 feet along the west property line so poles can provide a more uniform 50–75 foot‑candle competitive lighting level; staff said fixtures have full property‑line cutoff and the photometric plan, together with proposed planting, would limit off‑site light to no more than about 1 foot‑candle above ambient at the property line.

The staff report described a noise study prepared by BAP Acoustics and technical mitigation built into the plan: an increased 8‑foot masonry wall on the west side, acoustical blankets (identified in the packet as products such as Acoustifense or Pickle Block) attached behind fences on the south side, and additional internal court separations. Staff recommended approval and applied CEQA categorical exemptions (Class 32 infill and a Class 3 small structures exemption), saying the project conforms with the general plan’s neighborhood community commercial designation and M‑1 zoning where C‑1 commercial/recreation uses are permitted.

Architect Mark Stewart and owner Cliff Teston said they had coordinated design and mitigation with staff and consultants. Stewart said the team used industry guidelines and the acoustical recommendations to quantify mitigations; he told commissioners the rendering and materials selection aimed to be visually compatible with nearby development. Teston, who identified himself as a long‑time Palm Springs resident, said the facility would serve both residents and visitors.

More than a dozen members of the public spoke, nearly all in favor. Supporters said the city needs more courts, described pickleball as an intergenerational community activity and praised the applicants’ local ties and business plan. "I think this all work together to make this thing arguably the best pickleball complex in the country," said Mark Stewart, the architect; Kirk Ballard, Mike Rasmus, Todd Dickey and others urged approval.

Commissioners questioned the applicants about shade and summer operations, durability and color of the black acoustical blankets, tree species and sizes for perimeter screening, and the placement and shielding of light poles. Staff and the applicant said shade structures might be considered later but were not in the current budget; they confirmed plant species and that staff would require water‑efficient landscaping and larger, 36‑inch box trees in screening locations.

During deliberations the chair moved to approve the development permit, CUP and a minor administrative modification (the packet also described a requested 10% reduction in required off‑street parking to be processed administratively if the project proceeds). The motion included edits to findings language to replace wording that said "sometimes noise complaints can occur" with "there may be noise complaints," required 36‑inch box trees, asked that architectural review committee conditions be recommended to ARC, and required the project to return to the commission for review after six months of full (seasonal) operation to assess noise complaints — with an earlier return triggered if the Department of Special Program Compliance records complaints or violations. Staff noted the planning commission may call up a CUP under zoning code section 94‑02 for further consideration if needed.

On roll call the commission voted unanimously to approve the permits and conditions. The approval will allow the applicant to proceed to architectural review, and staff said a director‑level administrative approval would follow for minor administrative modifications if the commission’s conditions are met.

Next steps include architectural review committee review of the major architectural application under the commission’s recommended conditions and any required director approvals for the minor modification. The commission also confirmed that item 4a was continued to the Jan. 13 meeting as noted earlier in the session.