HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-07 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2022 – 6:00 P.M.
ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Any person wishing to discuss any item not appearing on the agenda may address
the Planning Commission via the Zoom session at this point by giving his/her name
and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three (3)
minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. Because the
Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the
agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond
or instead refer the matter to staff for a report and recommendation at a future Planning
Commission meeting.
THREE OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING
Option 1 – To Participate by email:
1. Send your comments by email to: planning@cityofpalmdesert.org. Emails
received by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting will be made part of the record and
distributed to the Planning Commission. This method is encouraged because
it will give the Commissioners the opportunity to reflect upon your input. Emails
will not be read aloud.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361, the Planning Commission may be
conducted via teleconference/virtual meeting and there will be no in-person
public access to the meeting location.
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 7, 2022
2
Option 2 – To Participate and Provide Verbal Comments by Using Your Internet,
then click on “Launch Meeting.”
1. Click the link: https://palmdesert.zoom.us/j/84739707419
Option 3 – To Listen and Provide Verbal Comments Using Your Telephone
1. Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
Telephone US: +1 669 219 2599 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 213 338 8477 or
+1 602 753 0140 or +1 971 247 1195 or +1 253 215 8782
2. Enter the Webinar ID: 847 3970 7419 followed by #.
3. Indicate that you are a participant by pressing # to continue.
4. You will hear audio of the meeting in progress. Remain on the line if the meeting
has not yet started.
5. During the meeting, press *9 to raise your hand to be added to the queue to
provide public comment. When it is your turn, City staff will announce your
name or phone number. To mute or unmute your phone during the meeting,
press *6.
LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES
Staff reports and documents for agenda items are available for public inspection
at the Planning/Land Development Division and on the City’s website:
www.cityofpalmdesert.org.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE
NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE
CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER
SECTION VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA.
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 2022.
Rec: Approve as presented.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 7, 2022
3
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only
those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless the Planning
Commission authorizes additional time.
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to adopt a resolution under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approval of a Precise Plan (PP) for a 150-
unit multi-family (affordable housing) project adjacent to the Spanish Walk
community along the east side of Gerald Ford Drive, north of Frank Sinatra Drive,
and south of the I-10/Railroad. Case No. PP22-0004 (Western National Group,
Irvine, California, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2813, approving Case No. PP22-0004.
X. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. Cultural Arts Committee
B. Parks & Recreation Commission
XII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
XIII. INFORMATION ITEMS
A. Attendance Record
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not
less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 2nd day of June 2022.
Monica O’Reilly
Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2022 – 6:00 P.M.
ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair John Greenwood called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair John Greenwood
Vice-Chair Nancy DeLuna
Commissioner Ron Gregory (left at 6:17 p.m.)
Commissioner Lindsay Holt
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto
Also Present:
Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney
Martin Alvarez, Director of Development Services
Richard Cannone, Deputy Director of Development Services
Rosie Lua, Planning Manager
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
Director of Development Services Martin Alvarez summarized pertinent City Council
actions from the meeting of April 28 and introduced the new Deputy Director of
Development Services.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2022
2
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 2022.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Upon a motion by Vice-Chair DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and a 4-
1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None;
ABSTAINED: Gregory).
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to adopt a Notice of Exemption per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approval of a Precise Plan to construct five
(5) new residential units (1,600 square feet each) and a 1,935-square-foot addition to
the existing residential home to accommodate up to 38 residents for transitional and
supportive housing located at 44525 Santa Margarita Avenue. Case No. PP21-0010
(Heartbeat at 22, Palm Desert, California, Applicant).
The staff report(s) and Zoom video of the meeting are available on the City’s
website. Click on the following link to access: www.planning-commission-
information-center.
Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report and responded to questions from
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Ron Gregory recused himself from this item after learning that MSA
Consulting provided engineering services for this project and left the meeting. Before leaving
the meeting, he noted that he works for MSA Consulting.
Commissioner Pradetto disclosed that he met with the applicant and City staff, and the
presentation by staff was consistent with the information presented in the meeting.
Commissioner Lindsay Holt also disclosed that she met with the applicant and staff. She
also noted that Holt Architecture and The Holt Group are not related financially. Therefore,
she sees no benefit from this project moving forward and would not be recusing herself.
Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING
or OPPOSING this matter.
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2022
3
Mrs. Jan Lupia, the applicant, spoke about the project and its operation.
The residents below opposed this item due to concerns with density, traffic, parking
structure, noise, lighting, inadequate infrastructure and water, fire safety, parking issues,
and apartments or short-term rentals if Heartbeat at 22 shuts down.
Ms. Helga Moriarty, Grand Canyon Lane, Palm Desert
Ms. Mike Robilio, Santa Margarita Avenue, Palm Desert
Mr. Paul Golden, Grand Canyon Lane, Palm Desert
Ms. Penelope Ray and Mr. John Garcia, De Anza Way, Palm Desert
Ms. Heather Darling, Silver Canyon Lane, Palm Desert
Mr. Loran Chick, Santa Margarita Avenue, Palm Desert
Ms. Nanette Boileau, Santa Margarita, Palm Desert
Ms. Christine Aleman, Santa Margarita, Palm Desert
Mr. John Flavio, Mama’s House Board Member, Collegiate Circle, Rancho Mirage, said
that the program helps women be self-sufficient to care for their babies.
Mr. Floyd Rhoades, Mama’s House Board Member, Santa Fe Cove, Indian Wells, said
assisted living would be the best alternative to the Mama’s House Program.
With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed.
The Commission explained their support for the proposed project.
Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2812, adopting a Notice of Exemption and approving Case No.
PP21-0010. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and was carried by a 4-0 vote
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory).
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. CULTURAL ARTS COMMITTEE
None
B. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
None
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2022
4
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Greenwood adjourned the meeting at
7:10 p.m.
JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR
ATTEST:
MARTĺN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY
MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY
Page 1 of 10
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 7, 2022
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVAL OF A PRECISE
PLAN (PP) FOR A 150-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY (AFFORDABLE HOUSING)
PROJECT ADJACENT TO THE SPANISH WALK COMMUNITY ALONG THE
EAST SIDE OF GERALD FORD DRIVE, NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA
DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE I-10/RAILROAD.
RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2813:
1. Finding no further environmental review is required from CEQA under Section 15183 (Projects
Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines); and
2. Approval of PP22-0004 for the proposed 150-unit multi-family (affordable housing) apartment
community consisting of eight (8) three-story apartment buildings, a single-story clubhouse, and
open space amenities on a 6.8-acre parcel.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project, including architecture
and landscaping, at two (2) separate meetings (March 22, 2022, and April 12, 2022).
On March 22, 2022, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) preliminary reviewed and provided
design comments to the applicant with no action taken. Comments and concerns provided by
Commissioners during the discussion include, but were not limited to:
• Provide more recess for windows where available.
• Revisit parapets to ensure all ends are concealed and/or returned inward enough to provide
a three-dimensional appearance.
• Material transitions should be in different planes.
• Incorporate more architectural details from the recreation building into the residential
buildings.
• Include lighting details on perspectives.
• Revisit proposed tree species between buildings to ensure their maximum growth potential
does not exceed the proposed allocated space and encroach on the adjacent buildings.
• Further research options for noise mitigation with particular attention to the northside of the
site.
• Applicant should be mindful of flashing details to avoid contrast with clean forms of building.
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 2 of 10
On April 12, 2022, the ARC was complimentary of the design quality of the revised project. The ARC
recommended approval of the project by a 5-0 vote with Commissioner Van Vliet absent, subject to
the following conditions of approval:
• Revisit parapets to ensure all ends are concealed and/or returned inward enough to provide
the appearance of a three-dimensional mass.
• Revisit typical parapet detail and refine the design to demonstrate concealed detail edges.
• Staff will confirm flashing details are concealed against clean edges and are included in
construction documents.
• Landscaping should have provisions in place that ensure it is well maintained and watered
properly.
• Applicant will be mindful of the need for noise mitigation measures.
• Applicant shall call for a planning inspection during framing to ensure parapets are built and
concealed as approved and utility equipment is screened appropriately.
• Project revisions will be reviewed by staff and returned to the ARC should there be any items
that cannot be resolved with the Applicant.
The conditions of approval will be incorporated within the construction documents and reviewed by
staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of staff’s recommendation will adopt a resolution approving the project, consisting of a PP
and Environmental Assessment (EA) for a 150-unit multi-family (income restricted) apartment
community on a 6.8-acre site. The project consists of eight (8) three-story residential buildings, a
single-story clubhouse, open space amenities, landscaping, 270 on-site parking spaces, and related
off-site street improvements.
The project site was included as part of the originally approved Spanish Walk on December 8, 2005,
by Resolution No. 05-105 for 755 units (605 condominium/single-family and 150 apartment units) on
79.6 acres. The 150-unit apartment site was conditioned to provide a minimum of 20 percent income-
restricted units and enter into a Housing Agreement with the City.
The proposed project is providing 100 percent income restrictive units, which is beyond the 20
percent income required as part of the originally approved project, and the project is conditioned to
enter into a Housing Agreement.
The General Plan land use designation is Small Town Neighborhood, which allows single- and multi-
family dwellings with densities between three (3) and 10 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The originally
approved Spanish Walk project, including the 150 units has an overall density of 9.5 du/ac. The
development has been designed to conform with the applicable development standards of the
Planned Residential zone.
For the purposes of CEQA, the project has been deemed to be consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designation; therefore, no further environmental review is required under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 3 of 10
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
A. Property Description: On December 8, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution No.
05-105, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Precise Plan 05-12, and
Tentative Tract Map 33837 for 755 residential units. The project breakdown included 605
condominium/single-family units and a maximum of 150 apartment units on an adjacent 8.05-
acre parcel to the northwest. The apartment site was conditioned to provide a minimum of 20
percent income-restricted units and enter into a Housing Agreement with the City. The
Housing Agreement would be a requirement of a future project.
In 2017, the parcel approved for the apartment site (the subject of this analysis) was reduced
from 8.05 to 6.82 acres per a Settlement Agreement between the City and developer. The
southeastern portion of the property became a separate parcel intended for future
development for a daycare facility; it is not part of the proposed project. As part of the
Settlement Agreement, a revised site plan was prepared for 150 apartment units on the 6.82-
acre parcel. It contained the same type of land use (multi-family residential) intended for the
parcel and the number of units (150) as approved in 2005; therefore, it did not represent a
significant change from the originally approved project.
The Spanish Walk project currently has approximately 300 condominiums/single-family
homes constructed of the overall 755 residential units originally proposed, with the exception
of the 150 apartment units proposed in this application and the 0.711 acre area reserved for
the daycare facility. The remaining portion of the property is owned and operated by Emerald
Desert RV Resort.
B. Current Zoning & General Plan Land Use Designation:
Zone: Planned Residential – 19 dwelling units per acre (PR-19)
General Plan: Small Town Neighborhood (STN) – 3 to 10 dwelling du/ac
C. Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North: I-10/Railroad
South: Public Institution (P) – Cal State University
East: PR-19 – Spanish Walk
West: Service Industrial (SI) - Vacant
Project Description:
The proposed project includes the construction of 150 multi-family income-restricted units consisting
of eight (8) three-story (37’-6” in height) apartment buildings, one (1) single-story (15’-7” in height)
recreation building, private outdoor recreation areas, and associated parking.
Below are the proposed number of units per bedroom count and unit size (square feet):
• 111 units, 2-bedroom (average unit size of 913 square feet)
• 39 units, 3-bedroom (average unit size of 1,274 square feet)
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 4 of 10
The 3,126-square-foot recreation building includes a leasing office, mailroom, lounge, outdoor
recreation area, resident services, and maintenance facilities.
The private outdoor recreation areas include a playground, dog park, pocket park, and pedestrian
sidewalks.
The parking lot includes 270 parking spaces with a mix of covered and open spaces, electric vehicle
(EV) spaces, and American Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible spaces.
A. Site Plan: The community is designed with two (2) vehicular access driveways. Both
accesses are off Gerald Ford Drive, with the main entrance on the east-end and the
emergency access only on the west-end. A minimum 28’-0” wide drive aisle is provided for
internal site circulation and emergency vehicle access. The project will be conditioned to pave
the center median flush with the street and stripe turn lanes into the project per the
requirements of the Public Works Department.
Two (2) rectangular residential buildings fronting Gerald Ford Drive are approximately 28 feet
from the property line. The remaining six (6) buildings and recreation building are clustered
in the middle around open space areas and enveloped by the internal street network and 270
parking spaces. There is also a 30-foot easement along the north property line that will have
open space and desertscape landscaping.
The site plan provides pedestrian connections throughout the site with pathways and links
between apartment buildings and the on-site amenities.
Trash enclosures are also located throughout the site plan within the parking areas behind
the buildings to minimize visibility from public frontages and traffic conflicts.
The site currently has an existing eight-foot-high (8’) masonry wall along the east property
line. The applicant will continue the eight-foot-high (8’) wall along the west property line. The
north property line adjacent to the easements will feature an eight-foot-high (8’) sound wall,
which complies with the original 2005 mitigation measure identified within the noise study for
railroad noise and vibration. The front of the sight will remain unfenced.
The applicant may consider a monument sign located within the median at the main entrance
along Gerald Ford Drive.
Following is the proposed site plan:
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 5 of 10
B. Architecture: The proposed architectural style is Desert Contemporary, with a variation of
building materials, including smooth stucco, wood composite siding, and perforated metal
panels. The apartment buildings are three stories in height with articulation of the building
façades. The east facing ends of the apartment buildings (abutting the existing community)
has a step down from three story to two-story and provides balconies to help alleviate
massing.
The recreation building also features a Desert Contemporary design utilizing material and
colors similar to the residential buildings, however, incorporates a metal structure used for
shading and an unconventional roof line for architectural interest.
All HVAC units are roof-mounted and will be screened by parapet walls as demonstrated on
the roof plan.
C. Landscape: Shade trees are provided along the perimeter roadway frontages, within the
internal drive aisles, and in common areas of the site. The proposed landscape plan has a
low and moderate water usage planting material palette, with mixes of desert native species
for trees and shrubs.
The project includes approximately 245 trees throughout the site consisting of drought-
tolerant 48-inch box Olea Europaea and Palo Verde trees, 36-inch box Maverick Thornless
Honey Mesquite, Southern Live Oak, and Pink Dawn Chitalpa trees, and 24-inch box Dwarf
Bearss Seedless Lime, Desert Willow, Shoestring Acacia, and Mulga trees.
The project also includes various palm trees consisting of Date Palms, which line the main
entrance, and a mix of California Fan Palms and Mexican Blue Palms in the interior area of
the recreation building. A variety of low water usage five-gallon shrubs are also provided
throughout the site including the perimeter area and paseos between the buildings. These
shrubs include the Red Bird of Paradise, Desert Broom, Red Sage, Agave, Texas Ranger,
Jacob Cactus, Bougainvillea, and several other shrubs and accent plants as shown on the
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 6 of 10
planting palette in the proposed landscape plan.
Analysis:
The site was previously approved by Resolution No. 05-105 allowing the development of a 150-unit
affordable apartment development. The current zoning PR-19 allows up to 19 units per acre, which
would allow for 130 units. The increase in density to 22 units per acre totaling 150 units was
established within the Settlement Agreement, which allows for the higher density. The approval
requires a PP by the Planning Commission under Chapter 25.72 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
(PDMC).
Land Use Compatibility
The project site is designated Small Town Neighborhood (STN) by the Palm Desert General Plan.
The STN designation is intended to provide moderate intensity neighborhood development that
features a variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and mixed uses with an allowable density
range of three (3) to 10 du/ac. The proposed project of 150 multi-family units falls within the allowable
density range established for the STN land use designation. Additionally, the project conforms with
the intended built form and character established for the STN designation as the proposed
development of the site is a three-story moderate density multi-family apartment development.
The proposed project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, as demonstrated
below:
General Plan Conformance:
Land Use Policy No. 3.3, Variety of types of neighborhoods. Promote a variety of neighborhoods
within the City and ensure that neighborhood types are dispersed throughout the City. The project
contains 100 percent income-restricted units (affordable), adding to the affordability of housing
stock within the City. The project promotes multi-family residential that is in keeping with the mix
of higher and lower densities in the area, which meets the intent of this policy.
Land Use Policy No. 3.21, Infill neighborhoods. In existing developed areas of the City,
encourage development that repairs connectivity, adds destinations, and encourages complete
neighborhoods. This can be achieved by increasing intersection density, reducing block size, and
providing new community amenities and destinations. The proposed project is compatible with
the development pattern within the surrounding area by proposing 150 multi-family dwellings
contained within three-story buildings. The proposed project supports the expansion of housing
by providing high-quality residential development that is within a vacant property fronting Gerald
Ford Drive. The project is designed with internal pedestrian access and provides common area
recreational amenities available to all residents.
Housing Element
The Housing Element, a component of the General Plan identifies the City’s housing conditions and
needs and establishes goals, objectives, and policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing
and growth strategy.
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 7 of 10
The City of Palm Desert recently adopted an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, as
required by State law. The 2021-2029 Housing Element is the sixth update and is also referred to as
the 6th Cycle Housing Element. On March 10, 2022, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing
Element, which is currently under review by the State Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD) for certification.
The current Housing Element identifies this site as Letter “E” allocating a total of 21 affordable units.
This project is providing 149 affordable units, which will exceed the minimum number of affordable
units required. Below is the breakdown:
149 units affordable
Low, 119 units
Very Low, 15 units
Extremely Low, 15 units
A condition of approval of this project will require approval of a Housing Agreement by the City
Council.
Precise Plan/Development Standards
The proposed development complies with all setbacks (front, rear, and side yards), building height,
lot coverage, and parking requirements (subject to Planning Commission review and approval) of
the PR zone. The proposed development standards are analyzed for conformance.
Height: The PR zone allows for three-story buildings up to a maximum height of 40 feet pursuant to
PDMC Section 25.10.050(B)(11). The maximum building height for the project is 37 feet, six (6)
inches, which is permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Density: The original entitlements approved 150-units, and the proposed 150-units meets the original
project approvals.
The table below summarizes the project’s conformance with development standards for the PR-19
zone:
STANDARD PR-19 ZONE PROJECT CONFORMS
Height 40’-0” 37’- 6” Yes
Front Setback - 28 feet Yes
Rear Setback* - 105 feet Yes
Side (East) Setback - 95 feet Yes
Side (West) Setback 86 feet Yes
*Includes 30-foot easement
Parking
Section 25.46.040 Parking Requirements of the PDMC establishes that multi-family dwellings
require a minimum of two (2) parking spaces per unit. The 150-unit project would require a
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 8 of 10
minimum of 300 on-site parking spaces per this standard.
The project includes 270 parking spaces for a 1.8 ratio. The parking ratio of 1.8 is allowable and
can be approved in accordance with PDMC 25.34.040 Affordable Housing and Density Bonus
Provisions (D)(3).
Under the 2005 approvals, the project was required to provide 20 percent income-restricted units;
however, the applicant is providing 100 percent income-restricted units. Staff finds that the 1.8
ratio totaling 270 parking spaces is sufficient for this project. For comparison, the City Council
recently granted a 1.56 parking ratio for a similar 100 percent income-restricted project.
Additionally, Section 25.46.040 requires a minimum of 50 percent of all parking to be shaded.
The project currently proposes 149 covered carport spaces, which exceeds the requirement.
Public Input:
Public Notification:
Public noticing was conducted for the June 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting as required by
PDMC Section 25.60.060 (Public Hearing and Public Notice). A public hearing notice was published
on Friday, May 27, 2022, in The Desert Sun. Additionally, the City mailed a total of 342 public hearing
notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.
Community Engagement:
Per Section 25.60.060, the applicant must provide adequate community engagement efforts since
the project site is more than five (5) acres. On May 13, 2022, the applicant held a neighborhood
meeting at 5:30 p.m. at Emerald Desert RV Resort (Ballroom). The applicant mailed 342 flyers and
emailed 492 flyers to residents within 1,000 feet of the project. There were 21 residents in
attendance, primarily from the existing Spanish Walk community.
Staff was present to observe and answer any questions from the public. The main concern raised
by attendees was related to the affordable housing component. The applicant explained the
affordable housing function and financing process. There were no comments related to the project
density or building heights (three-story). The building architecture was complimented by some
neighbors.
On May 30, 2022, the City received an email from a resident within Spanish Walk regarding the
easements along the rear property line adjacent to the railroad. The resident’s concern was related
to future fencing adjacent to Spanish Walk’s existing trail along the rear property line. Staff contacted
the resident and stated that there are two easements allocating a 30-foot strip of land from the
property lines for utilities and a public easement for the Mid-Valley Bike Path project, which was
abandoned by the City Council on July 28, 2016. Staff included a condition of approval to install a
metal vehicular access gate at the easement locations.
Environment Review:
This document analyzes the proposed project with respect to its compliance with the CEQA,
particularly CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and in the context of consistency with the City of Palm
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 9 of 10
Desert General Plan and its certified Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2015081020).
CEQA Requirements
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines require that
state and local government agencies evaluate and consider the potential environmental effects of
projects over which they have discretionary authority. CEQA Guidelines §15183 allows for a
streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the development
density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR
was certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant
effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.
If the above qualifications are met, as stated in §15183(b), “a public agency shall limit its examination
of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or
community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed
in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information
which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe
adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.”
This document has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines §15183 including
the qualifications stated above. It analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed
project and evaluates whether they were adequately analyzed in a prior EIR such that the above-
identified streamlining criteria apply.
The project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan, for which an EIR was certified
in 2016. The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use
designation assigned to it in the General Plan, which allows single and multi-family dwellings with
densities of three (3) to 10 du/ac. The project site is part of a larger project, Spanish Walk, which
was approved by the City in 2005 for 755 units on 79.6 acres, or 9.5 du/ac. The General Plan
continues to consider this portion of Spanish Walk as part of the whole in its land use designation.
Given the project’s consistency with the General Plan, the City is not required to examine
environmental impacts that were already evaluated in the previously certified General Plan EIR.
Findings of Approval:
Findings can be made in support of the project and under the City’s Municipal Code. Findings in support
of this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2813, attached to this staff report.
City of Palm Desert
Case No. PP22-0004 Spanish Walk (150-units)
Page 10 of 10
REVIEWED BY:
Department Director: Martin Alvarez
City Attorney: N/A
Finance Director: N/A
Assistant City Manager: N/A
City Manager: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2813
2. CEQA 15183 Letter
3. ARC Notice of Action for April 12, 2022
4. Public Hearing Notice
5. Public Comment - Email
5. Project Exhibits
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, FINDING NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS NECESSARY UNDER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
AND APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 150-UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) PROJECT ADJACENT TO THE
SPANISH WALK COMMUNITY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF GERALD
FORD DRIVE, NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE
I-10/RAILROAD
CASE NO. PP22-0004
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 8th day of December 2005, by Resolution No.
05-105 approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Precise Plan 05-12, and
Tentative Tract Map 33837 for 755 residential units known as the Spanish Walk community.
The project included 605 condominium/single-family units and a maximum of 150 apartment
units. Development of the 150 units were required to obtain approval of the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the applicant Western National Group (“Applicant”) submitted a Precise
Plan application for a 150 unit multifamily (affordable housing) development community
consisting of eight (8) three-story apartment buildings, a single-story clubhouse, and open
space amenities on a 6.8-acre parcel (“Project”).
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert has an adopted General Plan and a certified
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH# 2015081020; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the development density and use
characteristics considered by the General Plan EIR in the Small Town Neighborhood land
use designation; and
WHEREAS, under Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15367 of the
State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm
Desert’s (“City’s”) Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Public Resources Code
§21083.3) provides that projects which are consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan,
or Zoning for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified “shall not require
additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are
project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site;” and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the 2021-2029 Housing Element adopted
by City Council on March 10, 2022, which is currently under review by the State Housing and
Community Development Department (HCD) for certification. The current Housing Element
identifies this site as Letter E, allocating a total of 21 affordable units; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
2
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 12th day of April 2022, consider the request by the Applicant at its
meeting and recommended approval with conditions to the Planning Commission of the
above-noted Project request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June 2022, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
Western National Group (“Applicant”) for approval of the above-noted Project request; and
WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report,
exist to justify approval of said request:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing
recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this
Resolution.
SECTION 2. Finding. The said application has complied with the requirements of the
"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of CEQA” Resolution No. 2019-41, in that
the Director of Development Services has determined that the Project is consistent with the
approved General Plan and original entitlements (Spanish Walk) and that other project-
specific impacts were evaluated in the approval of Spanish Walk and that no further
environmental review is required under State CEQA Guidelines 15183. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183 allows for a streamlined environmental review process for projects, which are
consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or
general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, except as might be necessary to examine
whether there are project-specific significant effects, which are peculiar to the Project or its
sites. If the above qualifications are met, as stated in Section 15183(b), “a public agency shall
limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an
initial study or other analysis: (1) are peculiar to the Project or the parcel on which the Project
would be located, (2) were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning
action, general plan, or community plan, with which the Project is consistent, (3) are
potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in
the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or the project’s
CEQA Section 15183 Analysis (4) are previously identified significant effects which, as a
result of substantial new information, which was not known at the time the EIR was certified,
are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.” This
document has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
It analyzes the potential environmental effects of the Project and evaluates whether they were
adequately analyzed in a prior EIR such that the above-identified streamlining criteria apply.
The Project is consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan Update (General Plan Update),
for which an EIR (SCH No. 2015081020) was certified. The General Plan Update provides a
framework for future growth of the City and projects the development reasonably expected to
occur during the buildout period. The Genal Plan Update EIR analyzed the environmental
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
3
impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update. The
Project is permitted in the zoning district where the project site is located and consistent with
the land uses, density, and vision of the General Plan Update.
The Project is consistent with the Housing Element, a component of the General Plan that
identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs and establishes goals, objectives, and
policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing and growth strategy. The City of Palm
Desert recently adopted an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, as required
by State law. The 2021-2029 Housing Element is the sixth update and is also referred to as
the 6th Cycle Housing Element. On March 10, 2022, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle
Housing Element, which is currently under review by the State Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD) for certification. The current Housing Element identifies this
site as Letter E, allocating a total of 21 affordable units. This project is providing 149 affordable
units, which will exceed the minimum number of affordable units required. A condition of
approval of this Project will require approval of a Housing Agreement by the City Council.
SECTION 3. Project Recommendations. The Planning Commission hereby approves
PP22-0004, subject to the findings and conditions of approval.
SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the
record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City’s office at
73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Martin Alvarez, the Secretary to the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 5. Execution of Resolution. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission
signs this Resolution and the Secretary to the Commission shall attest and certify to the
passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 7th day of June 2022, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR
ATTEST:
MARTIN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP22-0004
PLANNING DIVISION:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
Development Services Department, as modified by the following conditions.
2. The Applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action
instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the
adoption of these project approvals for the project, or the project approvals themselves,
the developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether
or not to defend such action. The developer, at its sole expense, shall defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any such
action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to the developer’s
approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at the developer’s sole
expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the
developer and cooperate in the defense. The developer, upon such notification, shall
deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of the City Finance Director to cover the
expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to
assure that the City expends no City funds. If both parties elect to defend, the parties
hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint
defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect the information,
under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the
cooperation in defending an action, City and developer shall coordinate their defense in
order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect
information. The developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its
defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third-party litigation of project approvals
without the developer’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned, or delayed unless the developer materially breaches this indemnification
requirement.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to the approved development standards
listed in the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), and state and federal statutes now in
force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. The Precise Plan (PP) shall expire if construction of the said project shall not commence
within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted by
the Palm Desert Planning Commission; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void,
and of no effect whatsoever.
5. Per PDMC Section 25.72.030 Precise Plan Amendment to a PP, the Director may approve
in writing on the approved PP minor modifications without the benefit of a public hearing
when such modifications do not adversely affect the public interest or the interest of
owners of neighboring properties or substantially alter the plan and so long as the
modification would not affect any other condition of approval. All other changes that do
not qualify will result in a new public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
5
6. All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not
limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and
irrigation, grading, and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with
the approved entitlement plans on file with the Development Services Department.
7. Construction of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final
approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become
null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and or clearance
from the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
Building & Safety Division at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
9. This project is subject to payment of the City’s Public Art fee. The fee will be applied at
the time of a building permit issuance and shall remain in the City’s public art fund.
10. Final lighting plans shall be submitted under PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape,
architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area.
11. All exterior lighting sources shall be fully shielded and directed downwards and is subject
to approval by the City’s Development Services Department. Luminaries with total lamp
lumens above sixteen thousand lumens shall not be used.
12. Access to trash and service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by the applicable waste company and the
Development Services Department and shall include a recycling program.
13. Final landscape and irrigation documents shall be prepared by a landscape architect
registered with the State of California and shall be submitted to the City’s Development
Services Department and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval.
All sheets shall be wet signed by the landscape architect and shall include the license
number and the expiration date. The landscape plan shall conform to the preliminary
landscape plans prepared as part of this application and shall include dense plantings of
landscape material.
14. All project irrigation systems shall function properly, and landscaping shall be maintained
in a healthy and thriving condition. The maintenance of landscaping and the irrigation
system shall be permanently provided for all areas of the project site, as well as walkways
and the portion of public right-of-way abutting the project site (parkways). Furthermore,
the plans shall identify responsibility for the continued maintenance (such as
homeowners’ association (HOA), landscape maintenance district, property owner, etc.).
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
6
15. All exterior equipment and all appurtenances thereto shall be completely screened from
public view by walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated to be consistent with
the building. The final construction plans shall include appropriate drawings
demonstrating how such equipment is to be screened from view. No rooftop equipment
shall be permitted.
16. All roof drainage systems and devices shall be designed such that they are fully screened
from view from all public streets. Drainage devices, including but not limited to, down-
spouts, shall not be located on any exterior elevation and shall be fully integrated into the
building structure.
17. All ground-mounted utility structures including, but not limited to, transformers, HVAC
equipment, and backflow prevention valves shall be located out of view from any public
street or adequately screened using landscaping and/or masonry walls.
18. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by the City’s ARC, as
referenced in the April 12, 2022, Notice of Action for the April 12, 2022, meeting.
19. The Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with all applicable local, state,
and federal laws and regulations.
20. All parking spaces shall be clearly marked with white or yellow paint or other easily
distinguished material. Except as required by State and ADA requirements, all markings
shall be a minimum four-inch (4”) wide double (“hairpin” style) stripe designed to provide
18 inches measured outside to outside under City Council Resolution No. 01-5. Parallel
Spaces and covered spaces are not required to provide double striping.
21. A copy of the herein-listed conditions of approval shall be included in the construction
documentation package for the project, which shall be continuously maintained on-site
during project construction.
22. The final design of all site walls and fencing shall be subject to review and approval by
the City’s Development Services Department that includes consideration of the
easements at the rear of the property.
23. The Applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City of Palm Desert prior to
building permit issuance. The agreement shall be in accordance with provisions related
to affordable housing.
24. The Applicant shall incorporate noise abatement measures into the project as identified
by the Project Final Noise Study in 2005.
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION:
25. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of Title 27 of the PDMC.
26. It is assumed that easements shown on the preliminary grading exhibit are shown
correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. A current
preliminary title report for the site will be required to be submitted at technical plan. The
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
7
Applicant shall secure approval from all, if any, easement holders for all grading and
improvements, including walls and fencing that are proposed over the respective
easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed,
vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no affect.
Should such approvals or alternate actions regarding the easements not be provided,
the applicant may be required to amend or revise the proposed site configuration as may
be necessary.
27. It is understood that the conceptual exhibits correctly show acceptable centerline
elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate
Q’s and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant amend or
revise the site plan as may be.
28. The Applicant shall obtain “will serve” letters from the CVWD for water and sewer,
Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical power, and the Southern California Gas
Company for gas.
29. All private streets and common areas will be permitted as shown on the conceptual
exhibit subject to these conditions of approval and the Applicant providing adequate
provisions through an HOA or other equivalent responsible mechanism as approved by
the City Engineer and City Attorney for the continued and perpetual maintenance of these
streets, common areas, and on-site Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
30. The Applicant shall pay all, if any, appropriate signalization fees per the City’s Resolution
No. 79-17 and 79-55.
31. The Applicant shall pay all, if any, appropriate drainage fees per the City’s Municipal
Code Section 26.49 and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 653.
32. The applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 843 as applicable to this
project.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall:
33. The Applicant shall prepare a final grading plan for the site. No grading or other
improvements shall be permitted until a final grading plan has been approved by the City
Engineer. Grading plans and all grading shall conform to the California Building Code,
the City’s Municipal Code Title 27 Grading, and all other relevant laws, rules, and
regulations governing grading in the City of Palm Desert.
34. The grading plan shall provide for acceptance and proper disposal of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, the
Applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easements as
approved by the City Engineer.
35. The grading plan shall provide for the protection of downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
8
36. Plans shall clearly identify the any grading work limits if phasing if phasing is proposed
in the development. A separate set of plans will be required for subsequent phases upon
approval.
37. Pad elevations, as shown in the conceptual exhibit, are subject to review and modification
under Chapter 27 of the PDMC.
38. Before approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed final flood
hazard/hydrology and hydraulics report for approval by the City Engineer.
39. Preliminary Drainage Study for Palm Desert Multi-Family Residential, dated April 4,
2022, was reviewed during the Planning application process. The Final report shall
address comments provided on April 21, 2022, on PP22-0004 Spanish Walk,
Completeness Review letter by Michael Baker International.
40. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed per City’s Municipal Code
Title 24, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s standards for
the Coachella Valley area, the Drainage Element of the Palm Desert General Plan, and
all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Palm
Desert.
41. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit a PM10 application
for review and approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the City’s
Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control.
42. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Land Development
Department.
43. Where grading involves import or export, the applicant shall obtain approval for the
import/export location from the Engineering Department, if located in the City. If the
import/export location is outside the City, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the
jurisdictional agency has provided all necessary approvals for import/export to/from the
site.
44. The applicant shall provide access easement to adjacent parcels identified by Assessor
Parcel Numbers 694-520-017 and 694-520-014.
45. It shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant to obtain all proposed or required
easements and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading shown on the tentative
grading plan exhibit. Proof shall be provided to the Land Development Division prior to
issuance of grading permit.
46. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following
grading operations to prevent transport and deposition of debris onto downstream
properties, public rights-of-way, or other drainage facilities. The Erosion Control Plans
showing these measures shall be submitted along with the grading plan for approval by
the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
9
47. If grading is required off-site, the applicant shall obtain written permission from the
property owner(s) to grade as necessary and provide a copy to the Engineering
Department.
48. It is assumed that the grading and the provisions for water quality management shown
on the conceptual grading exhibit can comply with all requirements for a Final Water
Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP) without substantial change from that shown.
Before approval of the grading plan Landowner shall prepare, or cause to be prepared,
a Final WQMP in conformance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Whitewater Watershed area for
approval of the City Engineer.
49. A project-specific Conceptual Water Quality Management (WQMP) Plan for WNG Palm
Desert, dated April 4, 2022, was submitted for review during the Planning application
process. The Final report shall address comments provided on April 21, 2022, on PP22-
0004 Spanish Walk, Completeness Review letter by Michael Baker International.
50. Final WQMP shall include a site-specific soil infiltration report and analysis.
51. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit plans for review and
approval of the City Engineer for all public improvements, including but not limited to
street and roadway improvements, street lighting improvements, water system
improvements, sanitary sewer system improvements, and landscape and irrigation
improvements. Plans shall provide for the construction of ADA compliant depressed
curbs and access ramps and be prepared by a registered civil engineer in the State of
California.
52. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post financial security guarantee for the
construction of all off-site/public improvements. The form and amount of the financial
security shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
53. Improvements for Gerald Ford Drive include, but are not limited to:
A. Parkway improvements along site frontage and providing adequate transition at
improvements terminus, as approved by the City Engineer. Including curb and
gutter, meandering buffered sidewalk, landscape, and irrigation improvements.
B. Gerald Ford Drive ultimate street improvements include a raised landscaped
median along the project frontage. As an interim condition to the future full roadway
improvement, the applicant shall provide a Two-Way-Left-Turn Lane (TWLT)
paved median in lieu of a left-turn pocket. The TWLT median shall extend along
the project frontage in order to provide appropriate access from southbound traffic
on Gerald Ford Drive to the site. Final Street improvement plans shall show
pavement section for the interim condition and provide corresponding signing and
striping.
C. Driveway approaches (2) per the approved conceptual exhibits.
D. Signing and striping.
E. Utility connections.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
10
54. Proposed westerly driveway will be restricted to Fire Department and emergency vehicle
use only; a Knox-box gate will be required and/or equivalent as approved by the Fire
Department and the City Engineer.
55. Proposed easterly driveway shall serve as the main vehicular access to the site.
56. Rough grading must be completed as shown on the approved grading plans.
57. Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the completion of rough grading in conformance with
the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the geotechnical report
approved for this project, and a licensed land surveyor shall certify the completion of
grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans.
58. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall prepare a declaration of
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) and submit it for review to the City. The
CC&Rs shall provide for the perpetual maintenance and operation of open space areas,
common spaces such as parking lots and recreational facilities, trash disposal for
common areas, and water quality best management practices (BMP) facilities by either
the property owner's association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in
common.
59. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the City’s Land
Development Division with a copy of the Fire clearance for the emergency access.
60. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay all project-specific fair
share contributions as identified in the approved.
61. During the course of the project, the applicant shall schedule a site inspection through the
Permit Center to meet and confer with the Public Works Inspector.
62. The Applicant is responsible for the completion of construction of all grading and
improvements for which plans are required and shall comply with all the requirements
within the public and private road rights-of-way.
63. The Applicant shall provide for drainage into on-site retention basins as shown on the
approved plans. Overflow drainage may discharge to the off-site basin on Parcel 9 of PM
36792.
64. Prior to a footing inspection from the Building and Safety Division, the engineer shall
submit a signed and stamped Form Certification to Land Development for review and
approval.
65. Submit a Letter of Certification to the Land Development Division prior to the scheduling
of a Final Inspection.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
11
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION:
66. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes:
A. California Building Code and its appendices and standards.
B. California Residential Code and its appendices and standards
B. California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
C. California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
D. California Electrical Code.
E. California Energy Code.
F. California Green Building Standards Code
G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations.
H. California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
67. This project will fall under the review and compliance of Chapters 11-A and Chapter 11-
B of the 2019 California Building Code.
68. The Applicant shall coordinate directly with:
Riverside County Fire Marshal’s Office
CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department
Main: (760) 863-8886
77933 Las Montañas Road, Suite 201
Palm Desert, CA 92211
69. Plan approval must be obtained from the County of Riverside, Department of
Environmental Health before constructing or altering structure or equipment (such as
fencing and decking). The Applicant shall coordinate directly with the health department
for application, plans, and specifications.
70. All trash enclosures are required to be accessible. Provide an accessible path of travel
to the trash enclosure. Trash enclosures shall comply with the minimum requirements
established by Chapter 8.12 of the PDMC.
71. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License before permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5.
72. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers’
Compensation Insurance coverage before the issuance of a building permit per California
Labor Code, Section 3700.
73. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1351 (PDMC 15.28.
Compliance with Ordinance 1351 regarding street address location, dimension, a stroke
of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the street, etc., shall be
shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions,
shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds, or other reasons that may render the
building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. The
Applicant may request a copy of Ordinance 1351 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from
the Building and Safety Division counter staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
12
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
74. Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow: Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans for the water
system shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The water
system shall be capable of delivering 1,5000 GPM at 20 psi for a two-hour duration. Fire
hydrant location and spacing shall comply with the fire code. Off-site (public) hydrants
are required to be located next to the access walkways providing access to the property
from Gerald Ford Drive and Technology Drive. (Reference the preliminary fire access
site plan and the preliminary fire service water plan.) An approved water supply for fire
protection during construction shall be made available before the arrival of combustible
materials on site. Reference 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) 507.5.1, 507.5.1, 3312,
Appendices B and C.
75. Fire Department Access: Prior to the building permit issuance, a fire access site plan
shall be approved. The access roads shall be capable of sustaining 60,000 lbs. over two
axels and 75,000 lbs. over three axles in all-weather conditions. Approved vehicle
access, either permanent or temporary, shall be provided during construction. CFC
503.1.1, 331.1 and 503.2.1.
76. Requests for installation of traffic calming designs and devices on fire apparatus roads
shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Ref. CFC 503.4.1.
77. Phased Construction Access: If construction is phased, each phase shall provide
approved access for fire protection before any construction. Ref. CFC 503.1.
78. Construction Permits: Building construction plans shall be submitted to the Office of the
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Additional fire and life safety conditions may be
determined during this review.
79. Fire Sprinkler System: All new commercial structures 3,000 square feet or larger shall be
protected with a fire sprinkler system. All new residential apartment buildings shall be
protected with a fire sprinkler system. Ref CFC 903.2 as amended by the City of Palm
Desert.
80. Fire sprinkler system risers shall not be obstructed in any manner. If a system riser is to
be concealed by means of a wall, soffit, column, or other building construction, it shall be
provided with an 18-inch clearance to each side and to the front of the system riser.
Access shall be provided by means of a door with the minimum dimensions of two (2)
feet, six (6) inches in width by six (6) feet, and eight (8) inches in height from the exterior
of the building directly to the riser as approved by the fire code official Ref. RVC Fire IB
06-07.
81. Fire Alarm and Detection System: A water flow monitoring system and/or the fire alarm
system may be required and will be determined at the time of building plan review. Ref.
CFC 903.4, CFC 907.2 and NFPA 72.
82. Knox Box and Gate Access: Building shall be provided with a Knox Box. The Knox Box
shall be installed in an accessible location approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal.
Gates installed across access walkways and maintained shall be provided with approved
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2813
13
Knox equipment. Electric gate operators shall be provided with Knox key switches.
Electric gate operators shall also be connected to a remote signal receiver compatible
for use with the preemption devices on the Riverside County fire apparatus. The gate
shall automatically open upon receiving a remote signal from the fire apparatus and
remain in the fully open position for a minimum of 30 seconds. Ref. CFC 506.1.
83. Addressing: All residential dwellings and commercial buildings shall display street
numbers, building number/letter designators, and unit designators in a prominent location
on the street side of the premises and additional locations as required. The premises
shall have an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual site layout which
shows the name of the complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and dire
hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum of 4’ by 4’ in
dimension and located next to roadway access. Ref. CFC 505.1 and County of Riverside
Office of the Fire Marshal Standard No. 07-01.
END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CEQA Compliance
Section 15183 Analysis
WNG Palm Desert
I. Introduction
The applicant proposes a 3-story, 150 multi-family unit residential development on approximately
6.8 acres of vacant land on Gerald Ford Drive approximately 1,200 feet north of Frank Sinatra
Drive and immediately south of the Interstate-10 (I-10) and railroad right of way. Access to the
project will be from two driveways on Gerald Ford Drive. The project site has a General Plan
designation of “Small Town Neighborhood” which allows residential densities of 3.0 to 10.0 units
per acre, and a Zoning designation of “Planned Residential - 19” which allows a maximum density
of 19 units per acre.
This document analyzes the proposed project with respect to its compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), particularly CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and in the
context of consistency with the City of Palm Desert General Plan (PDGP) and its certified Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2015081020).
CEQA Requirements
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines require
that state and local government agencies evaluate and consider the potential environmental
effects of projects over which they have discretionary authority. CEQA Guidelines §15183 allows
for a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the
development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for
which an EIR was certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-
specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.
If the above qualifications are met, as stated in §15183(b), “a public agency shall limit its
examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or
other analysis:
(1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general
plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not
discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action,
or
(4) are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new
information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have
a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.”
This document has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines §15183. It
analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and evaluates whether they
were adequately analyzed in a prior EIR such that the above-identified streamlining criteria apply.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 2 of 42
General Plan Program EIR
The project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan, for which an EIR was certified
in 2016. The PDGP provides a framework for future growth of the City and projects the
development reasonably expected to occur during the 20-year build out period. It includes a land
use map for future development and General Plan Elements that establish goals, policies, and
programs that address the needs of the community, environmental protection, and urban growth.
The PDGP EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption and
implementation of the General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned to it in the General Plan, which allows single and multi-family dwellings with densities of
3.0 to 10.0 units per acre. The project site is part of a larger project, Spanish Walk, which was
approved by the City in 2006, for 755 units on 79.6 acres, or 9.5 units per acre. The General Plan
continues to consider this portion of Spanish Walk as part of the whole in its land use designation.
Given the project’s consistency with the PDGP, the City is not required to examine environmental
impacts that were already evaluated in the previously certified General Plan EIR.
The PDGP EIR serves as the basis of this analysis, and the proposed project is evaluated for
consistency with the intent of PDGP policies and conformance with development regulations.
Information contained in the PDGP EIR is incorporated by reference, and mitigation measures
that would apply to the proposed project are identified.
II. Project Description
Project Location
The project site is located on the east side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 1,200 feet north of
Frank Sinatra Drive (Exhibit 1) and south of the I-10/Railroad right of way.
Existing Conditions
The subject property is currently vacant. Power poles occur on and adjacent to the site. A 10-foot
wide, north-south trending easement of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) crosses the property
and includes several electrical transformers and other equipment.
Land Use Designations
The subject property is designated “Small Town Neighborhood” (3.0 to 10.0 dwelling units per
acre) in the PDGP and “Planned Residential - 19” (PR-19) in the Zoning Code.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate-10 corridor to the north,
residential development (Spanish Walk) to the east, Gerald Ford Drive and vacant land to the
south, and vacant land to the west with remnants of six RV/mobile home concrete slabs to the
immediate northwest.
Project Description
A Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit are required to implement the proposed project. The
proposed project would result in the construction of a 150-unit affordable multi-family units
consisting of 8 apartment buildings and one recreation building (Exhibit 2). Proposed are 111 2-
bedroom units with an average unit size of 913 square feet (sf), and 39 3-bedroom units with an
average unit size of 1,274 sf. The apartment buildings will be 3 stories (up to 37 feet 6 inches) in
height, and the clubhouse will be single-story (15 feet 7 inches) (Exhibits 3, 4, and 5). The 3,126
square foot recreation building includes a leasing office, mail room, lounge, outdoor recreation
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 3 of 42
area, resident services, and maintenance facilities. Proposed setbacks are: front yard 20’-0”, side
yard 8’-0”, and rear yard 10’-0”.
The project proposes a central outdoor recreation area, playground, dog park, pocket park, and
sidewalks. The parking lot includes 270 parking spaces with a mix of covered and open spaces,
electric vehicle (EV) spaces, and accessible spaces. The site would be accessed from two
driveways on Gerald Ford Drive.
The IID easement, described above, includes several electrical transformers and other
equipment. The project may require the relocation of this equipment within the easement.
Project Background
2005 Approval
The proposed project was originally part of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project
(“Redevelopment Project”) approved by City Council in 2005. The whole Redevelopment Project
was approved for up to 755 dwelling units on 79.6 acres which, at the time, were developed as
the Emerald Desert RV Park. Specifically, the Redevelopment Project was approved for a
maximum of 605 condominiums/single-family units on 71.55 acres, and a maximum of 150
apartments on an adjacent 8.05-acre parcel to the northwest. The Redevelopment Project was
approved under CEQA with a Negative Declaration and included conditions of approval to mitigate
potential impacts.1 Since its approval, the condominium/single-family component has been built
out and is known as Spanish Walk. The apartments component is currently proposed for
development and is the subject of this analysis.
Density
The Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project was approved as a single project. With 755 dwelling
units on 79.6 acres, its density was 9.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which is consistent with
the “Small Town Neighborhood” General Plan designation (3.0 to 10.0 du/ac) assigned to it and
evaluated in the PDGP EIR.
2017 Settlement Agreement
In 2017, the parcel approved for apartments (the subject of this analysis) was reduced from 8.05
to 6.82 acres per a Settlement Agreement between the City and developer.2 The southeastern
portion of the property became a separate parcel and is intended for future development as a
daycare facility; it is not part of the proposed project. A revised site plan was prepared for 150
apartments on the 6.82-acre parcel. It contained the same type of land use (multi-family
residential) and number of units (150) as approved in 2005 and, therefore, did not represent a
significant change from the originally approved project.
1 Resolution No. 05-105, Case Nos. PP 05-12 and TT 33837, City of Palm Desert, December 8, 2005.
2 Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, between WNRA Palm Desert and the City of Palm
Desert and Emerald Brook, LLC, February 17, 2017.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 11 of 42
III. Environmental Analysis
Introduction
The following analysis describes potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, findings
of the PDGP EIR, and mitigation measures (if required) that are recommended as appropriate for
the proposed project. The discussion is consistent with the environmental issues provided in
Appendix G, as amended, of the CEQA Guidelines. Where appropriate and relevant, technical
analyses prepared for the project are summarized.
Aesthetics
The project proposes multi-family residential development in an urban setting on a site that is
adjacent to existing residential development (east) and vacant land (west) designated for future
employment and institutional facilities. The maximum proposed building height is 3 stories (37
feet 6 inches), which is consistent with the 3-story/40-foot building height limit of the PR-19 zoning
district in the Zoning Code. The project setback from Gerald Ford Drive is 28 feet 2 inches, which
is consistent with the minimum project perimeter setback of 20 feet from all property lines adjacent
to existing or proposed public streets. Other proposed setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, 8
feet in the side yard, and 10 feet in the rear yard; however, the Zoning Code does not provide
other setback standards for PR districts. Instead, it provides “flexibility in development and
creative and imaginative design” in PR districts.3 Development standards within PR districts are
subject to review, modification, and approval through the precise plan process, and site plans
must be reviewed by Planning Department staff before a building permit is issued. All
development projects in PR districts must comply with the development plan as approved and
adopted by the Planning Commission/City Council. This review process assures that any potential
project-related aesthetic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The project would not have any significant impact on scenic resources as no scenic resources
occur onsite or in the immediate vicinity. The primary scenic viewsheds in the project area include
the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, San Bernardino, and Little San Bernardino Mountain ranges that
surround the desert floor, the closest of which are 4 miles from the subject property. The 3-story
height proposed for the project would partially limit mountain views to the west as seen from the
closest Spanish Walk residences on the east. However, the project proposes multiple smaller
buildings oriented on an east-west axis, rather than one large structure, which will allow view
corridors through the project and reduce overall impacts to viewsheds.
Lighting and glare would increase compared to current vacant conditions but would be compatible
with existing residential development and future employment and institutional land uses in the
project vicinity. Lighting impacts would be reduced through compliance with the City’s building
code and lighting ordinance, which requires proper shielding of light sources and prohibits light
spillage on adjacent properties. A lighting plan will be submitted and approved prior to the
construction of the project, and all required conditions of approval would be applied.
3 Palm Desert Zoning Code Section 25.10.050.B.1
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 12 of 42
The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies pertaining to aesthetics:
Land Use and Community Character Element
Policy 1.1: Scale of development. Require new development along the city’s corridors
to use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with
surrounding development.
Policy 2.3: Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high quality
landscaping in order to extend and enhance the green space network of the city.
Policy 2.4: Tree planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately shade the
sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the city.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 2.1: View corridor preservation. Protect and preserve existing, signature views
of the hills and mountains from the city.
Policy 2.5: Dark sky. Limit light pollution from outdoor sources, especially in rural, hillside
and mountain areas, and open spaces, to maintain darkness for night sky viewing.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR. The EIR determined that development resulting
from implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts regarding
aesthetics. No mitigation measures were required or provided.
In addition, the proposed project is consistent in height, scale, and design with other uses currently
allowed in the Zoning Code. The proposed precise plan package will be subject to City review
and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in any new impacts or significant findings associated with aesthetics or increase the severity
of impacts identified in the EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR, and its severity
would not increase as a result of the proposed project from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject parcel that would change or
affect the impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The site is currently designated as “Small
Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multi-family residential development and is
consistent with uses allowed in the “Small Town Neighborhood” designation.
• Impacts of the proposed project on aesthetics were analyzed in the certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative aesthetic impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR. The project involves development
of a vacant parcel with a land use that is consistent with the land use analyzed in the
PDGP EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that the aesthetic impacts of the project
would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the
subject property or in the project vicinity that would require further environmental analysis.
Agriculture and Forest Resources
The project site is designated for the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use and is currently vacant.
Surrounding lands are developed or designated for “Small Town Neighborhood,” “Employment,”
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 13 of 42
and “Public Facility/Institutional” land uses. There are no farmland zoning designations,
Williamson Act contracts, forests, or forestry zoning designations in the project vicinity. The
proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of agricultural or forest land. No impact
would occur.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR. The EIR determined that the General Plan would
result in no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources and no mitigation measures were
required or provided. The proposed project would not result in any new impacts or significant
findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR because no agricultural or
forestry use is proposed, and no agricultural or forestry uses occur in the vicinity. The impact was
adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the EIR as a result
of the proposed project.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject parcel that would change or
affect the agricultural or forestry impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The site is currently
designated as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multi-family residential
development and is consistent with uses allowed in the “Small Town Neighborhood”
designation.
• Impacts of the proposed project on agriculture and forestry resources were analyzed in
the certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative agriculture/forestry impacts associated with
the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR. The project involves
development of a vacant parcel with a land use that, subject to approval of a Precise Plan,
is consistent with the land use analyzed in the PDGP EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that the agriculture/forestry impacts of
the project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have
occurred on the subject property or in the project area that would require further
environmental analysis.
Air Quality
The proposed project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions during construction and
long-term operational emissions from stationary sources (electricity and natural gas consumption)
and vehicle trips. Pollutant emissions could adversely impact sensitive receptors in the project
vicinity. The nearest sensitive land uses to the project site are condominiums/single-family
residences in the Spanish Walk neighborhood immediately east of the subject property, and the
project’s future residents would be considered sensitive receptors. The primary source of air
emissions at the proposed project would be vehicle emissions from local roadways and the
Interstate-10/Railroad corridor, approximately 150 feet north of the subject property.
The proposed project is consistent with the following PDGP policies:
Land Use and Community Element
Policy 3.1 Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process,
ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a “Neighborhood” General Plan
Designation) are complete and well-structured such that the physical layout and land use
mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are family friendly and address
the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities. New neighborhoods should have the
following characteristics:
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 14 of 42
• Contain short, walkable block lengths.
• Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles where
practicable.
• Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic building or
neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more than one-quarter mile from this
focal point.
• Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
• Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
• Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
• Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography necessitates
another street network layout).
• Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
Policy 3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the
majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood
goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners,
laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care, pharmacies and similar uses.
Health and Wellness Element
Policy 6.1: Near-source air quality impacts. Avoid locating new air quality-sensitive
uses (schools, child care centers, senior centers, medical facilities, and residences) in
proximity to sources of localized air pollution (e.g., Interstate 10, high traffic roads, certain
industrial facilities), and vice versa. Where such uses are located within 500 feet of each
other, require preparation of a health impact assessment (HIA) or similarly effective health
analysis, as part of the CEQA environmental review process, to analyze the significance
of the health impact on sensitive land uses and incorporate project-specific mitigation
measures to reduce potential impacts. For sensitive land uses that cannot be avoided
within 500 feet of sources of localized air pollution, potential design mitigation options
include:
• Providing residential units with individual HVAC systems in order to allow adequate
ventilation with windows closed;
• Locating air intake systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems as far away from existing air pollution sources as possible;
• Using HEPA air filters in the HVAC system and developing a maintenance plan to
ensure the filtering system is properly maintained; and
• Utilizing only fixed windows next to any existing sources of pollution.
• Using sound walls, berms, and vegetation as physical barriers.
• Notifying new potential home buyers of risks from air pollution.
Policy 6.2: Healthy buildings. Require new development to meet the State’s Green
Building Code standards for indoor air quality performance, and promote green building
practices that support “healthy buildings,” such as low VOC materials, environmental
tobacco smoke control, and indoor air quality construction pollution prevention techniques.
Policy 6.3: Sensitive receptors. Avoid the siting of new projects and land uses that would
produce localized air pollution in a way that would adversely impact existing air quality-
sensitive receptors including schools, childcare centers, senior housing, and subsidized
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 15 of 42
affordable housing. The recommended minimum distance separating these uses should
be 500 feet. When a minimum distance of 500 feet cannot be avoided, a health impact
assessment (HIA) shall be completed in compliance with Policy 6.1.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 8.4: Electric vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf
carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), by encouraging development to provide
EV and NEV charging stations, street systems, and other infrastructure that support the
use of EVs. Similarly, encourage the use of renewable energy sources to power EV plug-
in stations.
Policy 8.5: Construction-related emissions. Require construction activities, including
on-site building and the transport of materials, to limit emissions and dust.
The project proposes 150 apartment units, the same number and type of units approved in 2005
as part of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project. The Redevelopment Project was approved
for a total of 755 dwelling units on 79.6 acres.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR. The designation allows a maximum of 10.0 units
per acre; therefore, the EIR assumed the 79.6-acre property could accommodate 796 dwelling
units. The Redevelopment Project, which was evaluated and approved as a whole, would result
in 38 fewer dwelling units than was analyzed for the site in the PDGP EIR; therefore, construction
and stationary source (electricity and natural gas consumption) emissions would be less than
those determined in the EIR. Similar reductions in vehicle emissions would be anticipated from
the Redevelopment Project as fewer dwelling units would result in fewer vehicles and vehicle trips
than projected in the PDGP EIR (see also “Transportation” section below). Therefore, the
Redevelopment Project, including the currently proposed apartment project, would result in less
intense air quality impacts than determined in the PDGP EIR.
The project occurs within 500 feet of the I-10/Railroad corridor. The closest building will occur at
approximately 250 feet south of the corridor. As a result, there is a potential for residents to be
exposed to pollutant concentrations associated with diesel emissions. As required by Policy 6.1,
the proposed project will need to be constructed with enhanced components, including air
conditioning units with HEPA filters, landscaping and wall screening, and similar features
identified in the General Plan to reduce these risks. As provided in the policy, and identified in the
determination below, these design features will reduce the impacts associated with diesel
emissions to less than significant levels.
The proposed project could generate odors during construction (i.e., from diesel exhaust and the
application of architectural coatings); however, these would be temporary and intermittent and,
given that the project is not an industrial or similar project, no substantial long-term odor impacts
would occur.
The PDGP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in less than
significant air quality impacts because the General Plan would enforce SCAQMD rules and
regulations that would help reduce short-term and long-term emissions and provide mitigation
measures as necessary on a case-by-case basis.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 16 of 42
The proposed project will result in lower air quality emissions than were considered in the PDGP
EIR and, therefore, impacts will remain less than significant. The proposed project would not result
in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the
PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that
identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject site that would substantially
change or affect the air quality impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. Uniformly applied
development policies, including construction policies, will apply to the project and the
project would result in lesser air quality impacts than previously analyzed in the PDGP
EIR due to reduced electricity and natural gas consumption and vehicle trips when
compared to currently permitted density allowed for the site. Compliance with PDGP
Policies 6.1 and 6.3, and in order to assure that design features reduce diesel particulates
in the apartments within 500 feet of the I-10/Railroad corridor, the project will be required
to:
o With the submittal of building plans, the project proponent will demonstrate, through
submittal of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), that sufficient design features,
including those shown below, have been incorporated into the project to reduce health
risks for all units within 500 feet of the corridor.
• Providing residential units with individual HVAC systems in order to allow adequate
ventilation with windows closed;
• Locating air intake systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems as far away from existing air pollution sources as possible;
• Using HEPA air filters in the HVAC system and developing a maintenance plan to
ensure the filtering system is properly maintained;
• Utilizing only fixed windows next to any existing sources of pollution.
• Using sound walls, berms, and vegetation as physical barriers.
• Impacts of the proposed project on air quality resources were analyzed in the certified
PDGP EIR, as the project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use
analyzed onsite in the PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative air quality impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as future projects in the vicinity and
the project are not more intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned
to it in the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that air quality impacts of the project
would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the
subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Biological Resources
The project site is currently vacant and surrounded by residential development, Interstate-10 and
Union Pacific Railroad corridor, and vacant land. Previous ground disturbing activities, including
scraping or grading have removed nearly all native vegetation. The site does not contain
designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species and there are no riparian habitat
or federally protected wetlands, migratory wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites on-site. The
project site is within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP)
boundary but is not located in or adjacent to a MSHCP-designated conservation area.
Development of the project will require payment of the MSHCP local developer mitigation fee
designed to mitigate impacts to locally sensitive species by allowing the purchase of conservation
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 17 of 42
lands in sensitive habitat areas. The payment of the fee will assure that most impacts associated
with sensitive species are less than significant.
The proposed project is consistent with the following policies of the PDGP:
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 4.3: Landscape design. Continue to encourage new developments to incorporate
native vegetation materials into landscape plans and prohibit the use of species known to
be invasive according to the California Invasive Plant Inventory.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designated by
the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan
would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources after implementation of
mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 (EIR p. 4.5-24 to 4.5-25) was provided to reduce
potential impacts to sensitive species and habitats by requiring applicants of future development
projects that disturb undeveloped land to prepare and submit biological resources surveys and,
as applicable, obtain permits and authorizations from relevant federal and state agencies to
address and minimize potential project-related impacts on sensitive species and habitats, nesting
birds (burrowing owl), jurisdictional waters, and wetlands. The project site is vacant but highly
disturbed, and not in its native condition, contains almost no vegetation, and is not in or in the
vicinity of a conservation area designated under the CV MSHCP.
The project would not result in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of
impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would
not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject site that would change or
affect the impacts to biological resources analyzed in the PDGP EIR. Policy 4.3 described
above, will apply to the project. The project will not increase biological resources impacts
as analyzed in the PDGP EIR because the project site has no potential to harbor sensitive
species, habitats, wetlands or streams.
• Impacts of the proposed project on biological resources were analyzed in the certified
PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative biological resource impacts associated with
the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more
intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and
analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that biological resource impacts of the
project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred
on the subject site or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Cultural Resources
The project site is vacant and does not contain a historical resource, landmark, or point of interest.
A Historical and Archaeological Resources Survey was conducted for the subject property in
March 2022 (Appendix A).4 Findings were established through a search of
4 “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-520-019 and -020,
City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California,” CRM TECH, March 17, 2022.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 18 of 42
historical/archaeological resources records, historical background research, contact with Native
American representatives, and an intensive-level field survey. The survey determined that no
cultural resources of prehistoric or historical origin were previously recorded or encountered
onsite during the field survey. No “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, exist on the Project
site or in the Project area, and the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any
known cultural resources.
The proposed project is consistent with the following policies of the PDGP:
Environmental Resource Element
Policy 9.2: Discovery of human remains. Require that any human remains discovered
during implementation of public and private projects within the City be treated with respect
and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.
Policy 9.3: Tribal coordination. Require notification of California Native American tribes
and organizations of proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural
resources.
Policy 9.5: Preservation of historic resources. Encourage the preservation of historic
resources, when practical. When it is not practical to preserve a historic resource in its
entirety, the City will require the architectural details and design elements of historic
structures to be preserved during renovations and remodels as much as feasible.
Policy 9.7: Mitigation and preservation of cultural resources. Require development to
avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever possible. If complete
avoidance is not possible, require development to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts
to the resources.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The PDGP EIR determined that implementation
of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to historical resources. However,
it would result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures 4.6-2a through 4.6-2d (EIR p. 4.6-8 and 4.6-9) were established for projects
involving ground disturbance, such as grading and excavation. They require special studies to
identify and evaluate archaeological and tribal cultural resources, archaeological construction
monitoring and construction personnel awareness training, and detailed mitigation plans if the site
contains sensitive resources. The EIR determined that, with mitigation, potentially significant
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Coordination with Native American
tribes is assured through compliance with AB 52, and the identification and protection of cultural
resources is further provided through implementation of Title 29 (Cultural Resources) of the City
Municipal Code.
In conformance with the PDGP EIR Mitigation Measures, a cultural resource investigation of the
project site was undertaken, and is provided in Appendix A. The field survey identified modern
refuse and debris on the property, but did not identify any historic or archaeological resource. The
investigation, including an intensive site investigation, found that no historic or archaeological
resources occur on the site, and that no further investigation or mitigation was required. Therefore,
the project has complied with the Mitigation Measure, and implemented PDGP policies to protect
cultural resources.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 19 of 42
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in any
new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR.
The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and site-specific cultural resources study and
would not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject sites that would change or
affect impacts to cultural resources analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The cultural resources
study prepared for the project (Appendix A) determined that impacts to such resources
would not occur. Therefore, the project will not change or increase cultural resources
impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR.
• Impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources were analyzed in the certified PDGP
EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative cultural resource impacts associated with
the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more
intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and
analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that cultural resource impacts of the
project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred
on the subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental
analysis.
Geology and Soils
The proposed project site is not within a landslide susceptibility zone and contains no known
active faults, although ground shaking resulting from regional seismic activity can have a
significant local impact. The subject property is in an area with a high wind erodibility rating and
moderate liquefaction potential; however, liquefaction risk is considered negligible due to
groundwater depths being greater than 50 feet. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements
and standard conditions of approval in the California Building Code, PDGP, and City Municipal
Code (Chapter 15.04, Building Code), impacts from potential geological hazards such as seismic
ground shaking, subsidence, and liquefaction would be less than significant. The site is not known
to contain unique paleontological resources, and the General Plan requires that any such
resources be avoided whenever possible and reported to the City.
Since the project site exceeds one acre, construction activities would be required to comply with
a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to minimize soil erosion impacts in addition to
city storm management discharge requirements, and will be required to implement a dust
management plan in order to reduce wind erosion potential.
The proposed project is consistent with the following Safety Element policies of the PDGP:
Safety Element
Policy 2.1: Seismic Standards. Consider exceeding minimum seismic safety standards
for critical facilities that ensure building function and support continuity of critical services
and emergency response after a seismic event.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 20 of 42
Policy 2.2: Structural Stability. Maintain development code standards to prohibit siting
of new septic tanks, seepage pits, drainage facilities, and heavily irrigated areas away
from structure foundations to reduce potential soil collapse.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 9.6: Paleontological resources. Require any paleontological artifacts found
within the City or its Sphere of Influence to be reported to the City and temporarily loaned
to local museums like the Western Science Center for Archaeology and Paleontology, in
Hemet, CA.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that implementation of the
General Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with geology, soils, and
paleontological resources. No mitigation measures were required or provided. The proposed
project will be required to implement the same standard requirements as all other development
projects in the City, including conformance to the City’s Building Code. The proposed project
would not result in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts
identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would not
change from that identified in the EIR as a result of the proposed project.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The subject property is designated for
“Small Town Neighborhood” uses, and the project is consistent with the allowable uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on geology and soils were analyzed in the certified PDGP
EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative geology/soils impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive
than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed
in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that geology/soils impacts of the project
would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the
subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the temporary
operation of construction vehicles and equipment, long-term power and heat generation, energy
use associated with waste disposal, water and wastewater treatment, and long-term operation of
vehicles by residents, visitors, employees, and others accessing the site. It would also contribute
to cumulative regional increases in GHG emissions. However, it includes electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations and bicycle parking facilities to accommodate non-motorized and alternative
modes of transportation, the use of which will contribute to GHG reductions. It will be required to
comply with energy efficiency site planning and building design measures, as well as applicable
waste diversion measures. Adherence to General Plan policies and programs, Palm Desert
Environmental Sustainability Plan policies, energy efficiency standards, and building code
requirements, would contribute to additional GHG reductions. Statewide programs and standards
will further reduce GHG emissions generated by the project, including new fuel-efficient standards
for cars, and newly adopted Building Code Title 24 standards.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 21 of 42
The proposed project is consistent with the following policies of the PDGP:
Land Use and Community Character Element
Policy 2.4: Tree Planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately shade the
sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the city.
Policy 3.14: Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the
majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood
good and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners,
laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care, pharmacies and similar uses.
Mobility Element
Policy 4.3: Bicycle Parking. Require public and private development to provide sufficient
bicycle parking.
Policy 8.6: Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf
cards and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting the use of EVs and
encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with renewable resources.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 5.10: Urban Forest. Protect the city’s healthy trees and plant new ones to provide
shade, include carbon sequestration and purify the air.
Policy 8.4: Electric vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf
carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), by encouraging developments to provide
EV and NEV charging stations, street systems, and other infrastructure that support the
use of EVs. Similarly, encourage the use of renewable energy courses to power EV plug-
in stations.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR. The EIR determined the buildout of the General
Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with achieving statewide long-
term GHG reduction goals, and that no adequate mitigation measures are available to reduce
potential impacts, and none were provided. In adopting the General Plan and EIR, the City
adopted findings of overriding considerations regarding impacts to GHG emissions. The proposed
project would not result in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of
impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The proposed project will be required to implement solar
panels in order to meet the current requirements of the Building Code for residential structures,
which will reduce the GHG emissions associated with the project, when compared to the
emissions analyzed in the PDGP EIR (prior to this requirement).
Planting new trees, providing parking for EVs and bicycles, and other measures that potentially
reduce energy consumption and reduce GHG emissions from the proposed project would not be
sufficient to significantly reduce the overall PDGP build out emissions throughout the City. The
impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not change from that
identified in the EIR as a result of the proposed project.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 22 of 42
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject site that would change or
affect the greenhouse gas impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. Uniformly applied
development policies, including construction and operation policies, will apply to the
project and the project would not increase GHG impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR.
• Impacts of the proposed project on greenhouse gas emissions were analyzed in the
certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts
associated with the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that greenhouse gas impacts of the
project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred
on the subject site or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in the transport, use, storage, and disposal of limited quantities
and types of hazardous materials typical of a residential development, such as chemicals for
household cleaning and landscaping. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials
site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, nor would the proposed land use generate
a significant public hazard involving the release of hazardous materials. The California State
University-San Bernardino (CSUSB) and University of California Riverside (UCR) campus are
within one-quarter mile of the project site; however, given the limited quantities and types of
potentially hazardous materials anticipated on the subject property, the project would not increase
risks to the campus or occupants.
The proposed project is not located near an airport or airstrip or within an airport land use
compatibility plan; therefore, the project would not create an associated safety hazard to people
residing or working in the project area.
Temporary construction traffic plans would be approved by and coordinated with the City and
Police and Fire Departments to assure that the project would not interfere with emergency
response plans. Due to its residential nature and absence of existing hazardous conditions onsite,
there are no General Plan policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials that are
applicable to the proposed project.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the General Plan and evaluated in the PDGP EIR. The EIR determined that, upon
implementation of regulatory requirements and the General Plan policies and programs,
implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with
hazards and hazardous materials. No mitigation measures were required or provided. The
proposed project will be subject to regulatory requirements and General Plan policies and
programs associated with hazards and hazardous materials, to the extent that they apply to
residential development and onsite conditions, as would any project in the City. The proposed
project would not result in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of
impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would
not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the hazardous material impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The subject property
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 23 of 42
is designated for “Small Town Neighborhood” uses, and the project is consistent with
multifamily residential uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in
the certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative hazardous materials impacts associated
with the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more
intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and
analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that hazards or hazardous materials
impacts of the project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes
have occurred on the subject property or in the project area that would require further
environmental analysis.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The subject property is in the northern portion of Zone 3 of the City Master Drainage Plan. It is
not located in a floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
or the regional flood control agency (Coachella Valley Water District). There are no dams or other
bodies of water upstream of the subject property, and upstream slopes are stable.
A drainage study was prepared for the Precise Plan application to evaluate the potential
hydrological impacts of the proposed project.5 The study found that the existing vacant subject
property contributes 16.23 cubic feet per second (cfs) of stormwater runoff onsite during the 100-
year, 24-hour storm event. The proposed project will produce 36.37 cfs during a 100-year, 24-
hour storm event due to an increase in impervious surfaces and removal of an existing onsite
ponding area. During long-term operation, a storm drain system consisting of multiple inlets and
two dedicated stormwater retention tanks will collect and retain 100-year, 24-hour storm event
flows onsite, and any overflow drainage will flow toward Gerald Ford Drive.6 All runoff will be pre-
treated by a hydrodynamic separator that removes sediment, debris, and free-floating oil prior to
entering the retention tanks. This method of stormwater management will result in effective
pollutant removal. Project-related construction and operational impacts would be minimized
through adherence to the project-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and
water quality management plan (WQMP)7. The proposed project will continue to drain in a manner
consistent with current on-site drainage patterns. With landscaping and stormwater retention
included in the design, the project would not significantly alter drainage patterns such that
substantial siltation, erosion, or flooding would occur. The project would comply with applicable
General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements (including Chapter 28, Flood Damage
Prevention) that address stormwater pollution, water quality, and flooding.
The proposed project will use domestic water for residential and landscape irrigation use. The
amount of water use will be consistent with that envisioned in the General Plan EIR, insofar as
the project proposes uses, density, and intensity that are consistent with the “Small Town
Neighborhood” land use designation.
5 “Drainage Study: Palm Desert Multi-Family Residential,” KHR Associates, February 1, 2022.
6 Ibid.
7 “Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan, APN 694-520-019 and -020,” KHR Associates,
February 1, 2022.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 24 of 42
The proposed project is consistent with the following policies of the PDGP:
Public Utilities and Services Element
Policy 1.1: Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development
projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated
by that development (regional shallow groundwater).
Policy 1.2: On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible,
stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated on-site in other ways
that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.
Policy 1.3: Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural
stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales
and permeable paving.
Policy 1.7: Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact development
strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and
recharge groundwater supplies.
Policy 1.10: Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall incorporate
stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch
basins shall be prohibited.
Policy 1.12: Retention basins. Encourage storm water retention basins, especially in the
City Center Area, to be underground in future development so as to achieve the most
efficient use of land and compact development and promote the urban character goals of
the General Plan.
Policy 1.13: Soil erosion. Require the prevention of water-born soil erosion from sites,
especially those undergoing grading and mining activities.
Safety Element
Policy 3.1: Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize
flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse
drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of runoff, and minimization of
structures located in floodplains.
Policy 3.2: Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding
regional flood control infrastructure improvements.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1.1: Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water
conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water re-use and
rainwater harvesting.
Policy 1.2: Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water
consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 25 of 42
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. Future water demands and impacts to
groundwater recharge and water quality were evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that,
upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval,
development resulting from implementation of the PDGP would result in less than significant
impacts regarding hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures were required or
provided. The proposed project will result in a multifamily residential development consistent with
the land use designation assigned to the property. Water demand will be consistent with typical
multifamily residential developments. The project will conform with City standards associated with
storm water pollution prevention. The proposed project would not result in any new impacts or
significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was
adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the impacts associated with hydrology or water resources analyzed in the PDGP
EIR. The subject property is designated for “Small Town Neighborhood” uses, and the
project is consistent with these land uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in the
certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative hydrology impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive
than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed
in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that hydrology or water resources
impacts of the project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes
have occurred on the subject parcel or in the project area that would require further
environmental analysis.
Land Use and Planning
The project would result in 150 multi-family unit residential development consisting of 8 apartment
buildings and one clubhouse building. The subject property is 6.82 acres of vacant land on the
east side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 1,200 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. The project
site is surrounded by vacant lands and residential development. The project is compatible with
these land uses as it is residential and will not be a significant generator of noise, air pollutants,
or traffic volumes that would conflict with existing development. The project will not divide an
established community.
General Plan Land Use Designation
The General Plan designates the project site as “Small Town Neighborhood” which is intended
for moderate intensity neighborhood development with densities of 3.0 to 10.0 units per acre. The
maximum building height is 2.5 stories8, although the project’s zoning designation allows greater
heights, as explained below. The proposed project was approved in 2005 as part of the Emerald
Desert Redevelopment Project which proposed 755 dwelling units (605 condominiums/single-
family units and 150 apartments) on 79.6 acres. The density of the whole project was 9.5 dwelling
units per acre, consistent with its “Small Town Neighborhood” General Plan designation.
8 Palm Desert General Plan, Chapter 3 Land Use and Community Character, page 29.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 26 of 42
Zoning Code
The subject property is designated “Planned Residential - 19” (PR-19) in the Zoning Code, which
allows a maximum density of 19 du/ac. As stated above, the project was originally approved
(2005) as part of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project with 755 dwelling units on 79.6
acres. The density of the whole project was 9.5 du/ac, which is consistent with the PR-19 zoning
designation.
The Zoning Code establishes development standards and guidelines for PR zones, including
maximum building height (40 feet) and maximum number of stories (3). The proposed apartment
buildings will be 3 stories with a maximum height of 37 feet 6 inches, and the clubhouse will be
single-story with a maximum height of 15 feet 7 inches. Therefore, the project is consistent with
Zoning Code height standards. The Zoning Code does not define setbacks or other design criteria
for PR zones to allow “innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with the character
envisioned at the time of approval.”9 The project’s proposed setbacks are as follows: front yard
20’-0”, side yard 8’-0”, and rear yard 10’-0”. Development standards within PR districts are subject
to review, modification, and approval through the precise plan process, and site plans must be
reviewed by Planning Department staff before a building permit is issued. This process will assure
that any project-related impacts associated with development standards are less than significant.
General Plan Policies
The proposed project is consistent with the following Land Use and Community Character
Element policies of the General Plan:
Land Use and Community Character
Policy 1.6: Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development, density,
and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood and community
amenities and design features.
Policy 2.3: Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high quality
landscaping in order to extend and enhance the green space network of the city.
Policy 2.4: Tree Planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately shade the
sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the city.
Policy 3.1: Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process,
ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a “Neighborhood” General Plan
Designation) are complete and well-structured such that the physical layout and land use
mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are family friendly and address
the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities. New neighborhoods should have the
following characteristics:
• Contain short, walkable block lengths.
• Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles where
practicable.
• Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic building,
or neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more than one-quarter mile
from this focal point.
• Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
9 City of Palm Desert Zoning Code Table 25.10-3.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 27 of 42
• Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
• Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
• Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography necessitates
another street network layout).
• Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
Policy 3.2: Conventional neighborhood design. Discourage the construction of new
residential neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, soundwalls, long block
lengths, single building and housing types and lack of access to goods and services.
Policy 3.3: Variety of types of neighborhoods. Promote a variety of neighborhoods
within the City and ensure that neighborhood types are dispersed throughout the City.
Policy 3.4: Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types,
promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to
accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development projects larger than five acres,
require that a diversity of housing types be provided and that these housing types be
mixed rather than segregated by unit type.
Policy 3.5: Housing affordability. Ensure affordable housing is distributed throughout
the City to avoid concentrations of poverty and to be accessible to jobs.
Policy 3.7: Walkable neighborhoods. Require that all new neighborhoods be designed
and constructed to be pedestrian friendly and include features such as short blocks, wide
sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings that define and are oriented to streets or public
spaces, traffic-calming features, convenient pedestrian street crossings, and safe streets
that are designed for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
• Provision of sidewalks. Except within designated rural areas, require sidewalks of
at least six feet in width on both sides of streets in neighborhoods and prohibit
obstructions that would impede use of the sidewalk.
• Block size. Require new neighborhoods to be designed with blocks no longer than
600 to 800 feet. Exceptions can be made if mid-block pedestrian and bicycle
connections are provided.
Policy 3.8: Neighborhood intersection density. Require new neighborhoods to provide
high levels of intersection density. Town Center and Small Town Neighborhoods should
strive for 400 intersections per square mile. Conventional Suburban Neighborhoods
should strive for at least 200 intersections per square mile.
Policy 3.14: Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the
majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood
goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners,
laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care, pharmacies and similar uses.
Policy 3.18: Soundwalls. Allow the use of soundwalls to buffer new Neighborhoods from
existing sources of noise pollution such as railroads and limited access roadways. Prohibit
the use of soundwalls to buffer residential areas from arterial or collector streets. Instead
design approaches such as building setbacks, landscaping and other techniques shall be
used. In the case where soundwalls might be acceptable, require pedestrian access points
to improve access from the Neighborhoods.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 28 of 42
Policy 8.4: University housing. Encourage the development of affordable housing to
ensure an adequate supply of dedicated housing for students and university and college
faculty.
Habitat Conservation Plan
The project site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP); however, it is not within or adjacent to an established CVMSHCP
conservation area. The project would be required to pay the standard Local Developer Mitigation
Fee and would not conflict with the plan.
Evaluation
The project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” General Plan land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that, upon implementation
of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, implementation of the PDGP
would result in less than significant land use impacts. No mitigation measures were required or
provided. The proposed multifamily residential development is consistent with the land uses
established by the General Plan, and the project would not result in any new impacts or significant
findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was
adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the land use impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The subject property is
designated for “Small Town Neighborhood” uses, and the project is consistent with
multifamily residential uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on land use were analyzed in the certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative land use impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive
than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed
in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that land use impacts of the project
would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the
subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Mineral Resources
The project site is vacant but surrounded by urban development or land designated for future
urban uses, and it contains no known mineral resources. It is classified as Mineral Resource Zone
3 (MRZ-3) in the California Mineral Land Classification System, which indicates an area
containing mineral deposits, however the significance of these deposits cannot be evaluated from
available data. The site and surrounding lands are designated for urban land uses in the General
Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project would not result in the loss or availability of a known
or locally important mineral resource because none exists onsite.
The project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation assigned by
the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR. The EIR determined that development resulting from
implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to mineral
resources. No mitigation measures were required or provided. The proposed project would not
result in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in
the PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that
identified in the EIR.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 29 of 42
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the impacts to mineral resources analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The project site
contains no mineral resources, and the project would have no impact on any such
resources.
• Impacts of the proposed project on mineral resources were analyzed in the certified PDGP
EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative mineral resource impacts associated with
the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more
intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and
analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that mineral resource impacts of the
project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred
on the subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental
analysis.
Noise
The closest noise-sensitive land uses to the project site are condominium/single-family
residences (Spanish Walk) immediately east of the subject property. An acoustical and ground
vibration site assessment10 and structural acoustical analysis11 were prepared in 2005 for the
Spanish Walk portion of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project. The City also used the
studies to evaluate noise and vibration impacts to the apartments component of the project.12 The
studies determined that the most significant existing noise sources in the project area are vehicle
traffic, primarily from the I-10 freeway, and rail activity on the Union Pacific Railroad. The project
area also experiences background traffic noise impacts from local streets, including Gerald Ford
Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive. Ground vibration from I-10 traffic is negligible and non-perceptible
to humans. Vibration from rail activity is slightly noticeable but does not adversely impact
structures in the project area.
Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term noise and vibration during
excavation, grading, and construction. However, impacts would be temporary, and the project
would be required to comply with construction time restrictions and other parameters established
in the City’s Noise Ordinance.
The acoustical and vibration studies determined that, with an 8-foot masonry wall along the
northerly property boundary, the worst-case onsite noise levels would be 64 dBA with typical
background levels averaging 62 dBA, with I-10 traffic being the dominant noise source. An 8-foot
masonry wall is proposed in the Precise Plan application along the northerly property boundary
of the subject property. Hourly noise levels from train operations were projected to be below the
60 dBA threshold, but operation of their signaling and warning devices during nighttime hours
could result in instantaneous peak noise levels above 90 dBA, and such events would result in
nuisance impacts to sensitive receptors onsite. Interior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL
10 “Acoustical and Ground Vibration Site Assessment, Emerald Desert Residential Development, Palm
Desert, California,” Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., July 21, 2005.
11 “Structural Acoustical Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey, Spanish Walk Residential Development, Palm
Desert, California,” Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., July 28, 2005.
12 Staff Report, Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, November 10, 2005,
page 12.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 30 of 42
would exceed Title 24 noise abatement thresholds. The studies recommended that interior noise
reduction methods (i.e., specialized door and window treatments) equivalent to a sound
transmission classification (STC) rating of 30 be examined for potential inclusion in the project.
These measures were conditions of approval for the Redevelopment Project as a whole.13 The
proposed project will be required to comply with this requirement. Vibration associated with rail
activity would be “slightly noticeable to humans during nighttime hours,” but no impacts to
structures would be indicated. No usable outdoor areas would exceed the City’s noise abatement
thresholds, no human or structural impacts from vibration would occur, and no exterior mitigation
measures (such as additional perimeter walls) would be required.
The project is approximately 4 miles west of the Bermuda Dunes Airport and, therefore, the project
would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.
The proposed project is consistent with the following Noise Element policies in the PDGP:
Policy 1.1: Noise Compatibility. Apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown in Figure
7.1, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require projects
involving new development or modifications to existing development to implement
mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to at least the normally
compatible range shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure 7.1.
Mitigation measures should focus on architectural features and building design and
construction, rather than site design features such as excessive setbacks, berms and
sound walls, to maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses.
Policy 1.2: Noise Buffers. Require an open space or other noise buffer between new
projects that are a source of excessive noise and nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
Policy 2.1: Noise Ordinance. Minimize noise conflicts between neighboring properties
through enforcement of applicable regulations such as the City’s Noise Control Ordinance.
Policy 2.2: Noise Control. Ensure that noise impacts from stationary sources on noise-
sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities, private
developments/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars, and special events
are minimized.
Policy 3.1: Roadway Noise. Implement the policies listed under Goal 1 to reduce the
impacts of roadway noise on noise-sensitive receptors where roadway noise exceeds the
normally compatible range shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure
7.1
Policy 3.4: Railway Noise. Ensure that noise from rail lines is taken into account during
the land use planning and site development process.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that implementation of the
PDGP would result in less than significant noise impacts associated with increased traffic and
stationary sources, and noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors; mitigation measures
13 Staff Report, Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, November 10, 2005,
page 12.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 31 of 42
were not required beyond existing regulations. However, construction noise impacts on sensitive
receptors could be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires notification of
property owners and occupants, proper use of mufflers on construction equipment, and locating
equipment staging areas away from sensitive receptors. With implementation of NOI-1,
construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
As required by Policy 1.1 of the PDGP Noise Element, acoustical and vibration studies were
conducted for the Redevelopment Project. As described above, the study determined that noise
events from train warning/signaling devices could be significant as they could affect interior noise
levels within the project. The City will require, as a condition of approval, that the proposed project
evaluate the need for interior noise reduction measures, as described in the noise and vibration
studies. With the implementation of this requirement, project noise levels will meet General Plan
standards.
The project would not result in any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of
impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and project-
specific Noise Study and would not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• The noise impacts peculiar to the project have been specifically analyzed. The site-specific
noise impact analysis demonstrates that operational noise impacts associated with the
proposed project will be less than significant with implementation of the conditions of
approval described above. The proposed project, as all other development projects, will
be required to implement PDGP EIR Mitigation Measure NOI-1, described above, which
would assure that the project will not increase noise impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR
during construction.
• The parcel is currently designated as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a
multifamily residential development that is consistent with “Small Town Neighborhood”
uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on noise were analyzed in the certified PDGP EIR and
further determined at the project level as part of this analysis.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative noise impacts associated with the proposed
project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive than the
“Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that noise impacts of the project would
be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the subject
parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Population and Housing
The project proposes 150 apartment units, the same number and type of units approved in 2005
as part of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project. As a whole, the Redevelopment Project
was approved for up to 755 dwelling units. Based on an average household size of 2.15 persons
per household in Palm Desert14, the Redevelopment Project would add approximately 1,624
additional residents to the City population (1,301 from the condominium/single-family component,
and 323 from the apartments component).
14 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2021.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 32 of 42
The General Plan “Small Town Neighborhood” designation assigned to the subject property
allows up to 10.0 units per acre. Therefore, the PDGP EIR projected that the 79.6-acre property
could accommodate up to 796 dwelling units. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.15
persons, the subject property could add approximately 1,712 residents to the City population. The
PDGP EIR analyzed the impacts of more housing units and population than the Redevelopment
Project would generate. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less intense impacts to
population and housing than determined in the EIR.
The project is proposed on a vacant site and would not result in the displacement of any people
or housing. The subject property is adjacent to existing roads and utilities and would not require
or result in the extension of infrastructure such that it would indirectly induce population growth.
The proposed project is consistent with the following PDGP policies:
Land Use and Community Character Element
Policy 3.3: Variety of types of neighborhoods. Promote a variety of neighborhoods
within the City and ensure that neighborhood types are dispersed throughout the City.
Policy 3.4: Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types,
promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to
accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development projects larger than five acres,
require that a diversity of housing types be provided and that these housing types be
mixed rather than segregated by unit type.
Policy 3.5: Housing affordability. Ensure affordable housing is distributed throughout
the City to avoid concentrations of poverty and to be accessible to jobs.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that development resulting
from implementation of the PDGP would result in less than significant impacts to population and
housing. No mitigation measures were required or provided. The proposed project would increase
the number of affordable housing units in Palm Desert. It would not result in any new impacts or
significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was
adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the population and housing impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The parcel is
currently designated as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multifamily
residential development that is consistent with “Small Town Neighborhood” uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on population and housing were analyzed in the certified
PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative population/housing impacts associated with
the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more
intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and
analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that population/housing impacts of the
project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred
on the subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental
analysis.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 33 of 42
Public Services
The proposed project would result in new structures and population that would require fire and
police protection and could contribute to the need for additional and/or expanded public facilities
that could cause environmental impacts. The project proposes 150 apartment units, the same
number and type of units approved in 2005 as part of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project.
As a whole project, the Redevelopment Project was approved for up to 755 dwelling units. This
would add approximately 1,624 additional residents to the City population, based on an average
household size of 2.15 persons per household in Palm Desert.15
The General Plan “Small Town Neighborhood” designation assigned to the subject property
allows up to 10.0 units per acre. Therefore, the General Plan EIR projected the 79.6-acre property
could accommodate up to 796 dwelling units. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.15
persons, the subject property could accommodate approximately 1,712 additional residents. The
PDGP EIR analyzed impacts from more housing units and population than the Redevelopment
Project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less intense impacts to public services
than determined in the EIR.
Project plans will require approval from fire and police departments prior to construction to assure
the facility is compliant with safety requirements. As a residential development, the project would
have a direct impact on schools. The project will be required to pay developer impact fees to local
schools to help address and offset the potential impacts to local schools. Overall, the project
would marginally increase the demand for school and library services, and police and fire
protection.
The proposed project is consistent with the following PDGP policies:
Public Utilities and Services Element
Policy 7.2: Review of new development. Work with the Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department and the Riverside County Fire Department to review and modify development
proposals to incorporate defensible space, Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED), and other public safety design concepts into new development.
Policy 7.3: Serving new growth. Expand police and fire service coverage in conjunction
with new growth to ensure quality of service does not diminish.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that, upon implementation
of regulatory requirements and General Plan policies, the PDGP would result in less than
significant impacts to fire protection, law enforcement services, and school and library facilities.
No mitigation measures were required or provided. The proposed project will result in less intense
demand on services than was considered in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in
any new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP
EIR. The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified
in the EIR.
15 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2021.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 34 of 42
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the impacts to public services analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The parcel is currently
designated as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multifamily residential
development that is consistent with “Small Town Neighborhood” uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on public services were analyzed in the certified PDGP
EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative public services impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive
than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed
in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that public services impacts of the
project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred
on the subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental
analysis.
Recreation
The project proposes an outdoor recreation area, playground, fenced dog park, pocket park, and
interconnected sidewalks that would provide recreational opportunities for future residents. The
proposed project will increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and will have
to participate in the City’s parkland fee program to offset impacts associated with new residents.
The project is consistent with the following policies of the PDGP:
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 3.1: Open space network. Require new development to contribute land and/or
funding to expand the community’s open space network, in support of the CVMSHCP.
Land Use and Community Character Element
Policy 3.15: Access to parks and open spaces. Require the design of new
neighborhoods and, where feasible, retrofit existing neighborhoods, so that 60 percent of
dwelling units are within a ¼ mile walking distance of a usable open space such as a tot-
lot, neighborhood park, community park or plaza/green.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that implementation of the
PDGP would result in less than significant impacts to parks and recreational services and
facilities. No mitigation measures were required or provided. The proposed project will offer on-
site recreational opportunities to residents and will participate in the City’s parkland fee program
to offset impacts associated with the new residents. The proposed project would not result in any
new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR.
The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the
EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the impacts to recreational facilities analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The parcel is
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 35 of 42
currently designated as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multifamily
residential development that is consistent with “Small Town Neighborhood” uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on recreation were analyzed in the certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative recreation impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive
than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed
in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that recreation impacts of the project
would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the
subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Transportation
The subject property is accessed by the existing roadway network, and direct access is proposed
from two driveways on Gerald Ford Drive. During construction, machinery and workers’ vehicles
would be present onsite and/or in the project vicinity. Construction staging plans would be subject
to City approval to assure that construction does not adversely impact existing traffic operations,
emergency access, or surrounding properties, particularly sensitive receptors (i.e., residential
development to the immediate east). During operation, residents, visitors, delivery drivers, and
others would access the site from Gerald Ford Drive.
Based on the Palm Desert Zoning Code Section 25.46.040 (Parking Requirements), the project
is required to provide 300 on-site parking spaces. The project provides 270 on-site parking spaces
which does not meet the standard. However, Section 25.34.040.D.3.i (Affordable Housing and
Density Bonus Provisions) allows a reduction in site development standards for affordable
housing developments, including but not limited to “the ratio of vehicle parking spaces that would
otherwise be required and that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost
reductions.” In addition, With this provision, the project would meet the City’s parking
requirements.
The project also provides 30 bicycle parking stalls, which is consistent with City requirements
(short-term = 5% of all required off-street vehicle parking; long-term = 5% of all required off-street
vehicle parking).
The proposed project was originally part of the Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project (2005),
which included 150 apartment units (currently proposed project) and 605 condominium/single-
family units (Spanish Walk). A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the Redevelopment Project
as a whole.16 Trip generation rates were based on data collected by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) in its published Trip Generation Manual. The apartments component of the
project was projected to generate 1,008 average daily trips (ADT). The condominium/single-family
component was projected to generate 4,257 ADT. Combined, the two components would
generate 5,265 ADT. This number was reduced to account for the removal of existing RV park
sites, and the final projected trip generation was 3,078 ADT. This projection overstated ADT
because it assumed 660 condominium/single-family units instead of the 605 units that were
approved in the final project, an overestimate of 55 units. Therefore, project-related ADT would
be less than 3,078, and the study provided a conservative overestimate.
16 “Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project, City of Palm Desert,” LOS
Engineering, Inc., October 18, 2005.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 36 of 42
As stated in the traffic study, a project in Palm Desert is considered to cause a significant traffic
impact if its traffic decreases operations at studied intersections to a level below Level of Service
(LOS) C and adds more than 2.0 seconds of delay under LOS D, E, or F conditions. Under the
Existing Plus Project scenario, the intersection of Cook Street and Country Club Drive would
operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour, but the Redevelopment Project would have no direct
impact on the intersection because it would add less than 2.0 seconds of delay. Under Buildout
(Year 2020) With Project Conditions, the Redevelopment Project would have a cumulative impact
on the intersection of Cook Street at the I-10 eastbound (EB) ramp as it would add more than 2.0
seconds of delay under LOS E conditions during the AM and PM peak periods.
The traffic report recommended five (5) mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts to less than
significant levels. First, the project applicant should pay its fair share (3.0%) toward future
intersection improvements at Cook Street and the I-10 EB ramp. Second, the applicant should
participate in future traffic signal construction at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and the
project driveway for the apartment portion of the project. The other measures are no longer
applicable because conditions have changed since the traffic report was prepared: 1) installation
of a traffic signal at Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive is not applicable because no part of
the currently proposed project connects to this intersection; 2) installation of a traffic signal at
Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive has already been completed; and 3) construction of
half street improvements on Gerald Ford Drive along the project frontage are not needed because
the road is already built out. All the recommendations became conditions of approval when the
Redevelopment Project was approved in 2005. Those that are still relevant, described above, will
be conditions of approval for the currently proposed project. However, as described below, the
PDGP EIR also analyzed build out of the project and its surroundings, based on updated land use
designations, existing conditions and current data.
Parking and trip generation reductions could be realized from the use of mass transit, walking or
bicycling, ride-sharing services, peer-to-peer vehicle sharing, telecommuting, and other
measures; however, these potential reductions were not quantified in the traffic study.
The proposed project is consistent with the following PDGP policies:
Mobility Element
Policy 1.1: Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and
construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and inviting environments
for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of all ages and capabilities.
Policy 1.2: Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and development
projects in a manner that addresses the impacts of all travel modes on all other travel
modes through the best available practices.
Policy 1.3: Facility Service Levels. Determine appropriate service levels for all modes
of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these modes for all related
public and private projects.
Policy 3.4: Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or
redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian
network.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 37 of 42
Policy 5.5: Private Development Access to Transit. Review development proposals to
limit impacts on existing or proposed transit facilities.
Policy 8.6: Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf
carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting the use of EVs and
encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with renewable resources.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that implementation of the
PDGP would result in no impact or less than significant impacts to air traffic patterns, congestion
management programs, hazardous conditions and emergency access, and plans and policies for
alternative modes of transportation.
To evaluate General Plan impacts on the performance of the circulation system, the PDGP EIR
traffic forecasting model projected future traffic performance at 39 intersections and 40 roadway
segments at General Plan build out. The nearest analyzed intersection to the project site was
Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, approximately ½-mile west of the project site. The EIR
determined that the intersection would operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hour
at General Plan buildout (Table 4.15-23 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service: Palm
Desert, p. 4.15-42). The nearest analyzed roadway segment to the project site was Gerald Ford
east of Cook Street in the project’s immediate vicinity. The EIR determined this segment would
operate at LOS C or better at General Plan buildout (Table 4.15-24 Buildout (2040) Roadway
Segment Level of Service: Palm Desert, p. 4.15-46). The proposed project represents a reduction
in the total buildout anticipated for the project area, and therefore will result in less traffic than
what was included in the EIR’s traffic modeling.
The EIR also determined that two intersections and one roadway segment were expected to
operate below the LOS D standard at General Plan buildout: 1) Washington Street and Country
Club Drive (LOS E); 2) Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive (LOS E); and 3) Washington
Street north of Country Club Drive (LOS F). The EIR set forth Mitigation Measures 4.15-1a and
4.15-1b to reduce future impacts at those locations to less than significant levels. However, they
are not applicable to the proposed Project; as stated above, all intersections and roadway
segments in the project vicinity were found to operate at acceptable levels of service at General
Plan buildout and did not require mitigation.
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in any
new impacts or significant findings or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR.
The impact was adequately addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the
EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the traffic impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The parcel is currently designated
as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multifamily residential development
that is consistent with “Small Town Neighborhood” uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on transportation were analyzed in the certified PDGP
EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative transportation impacts associated with the
proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more intensive
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 38 of 42
than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and analyzed
in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that transportation impacts of the project
would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have occurred on the
subject parcel or in the project area that would require further environmental analysis.
Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project would result in new development and generate increased demand for
utilities and service facilities. The project site is vacant and in an urban area, and the project would
not require the extension of utility infrastructure other than on-site connections. Project-related
water demand would be generated during both the construction and operational phases of the
project. The project is subject to the City’s pre-application and development review process that
requires a project to receive confirmation from CVWD regarding the availability of water and sewer
service. The EIR determined that CVWD is capable of meeting the water demands of its
customers through General Plan buildout.
The project would connect to the existing CVWD sanitary sewer system. The CVWD is subject to
wastewater treatment standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
all components of the proposed project will be required to design facilities consistent with CVWD
and Regional Board standards. Given that the proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town
Neighborhood” land use designation assigned to the subject property in the General Plan, and
that General Plan policies require projects to pay development impact fees and connection fees
to fund future expansion of wastewater facilities, existing and future wastewater treatment
facilities would be sufficient to serve the project.
CVWD is also responsible for regional stormwater management in the Coachella Valley. Drainage
issues affecting the subject property are limited to the management of local drainage. The project
site design includes landscaping and retention basins to capture storm water and minimize
pollution from runoff. The project will conform with City standards associated with storm water
pollution prevention and best management practices (BMPs).
The project will generate solid waste during both the construction and operational phases;
however, it will be required to comply with regulatory waste disposal and recycling requirements
to reduce solid waste impacts. Like all development associated with General Plan build out, solid
waste generated by the project would be within the capacity of existing facilities (PDGP EIR p.
4.14-45), particularly since build out of the project will result in fewer units than could be
constructed under the General Plan “Small Town Neighborhood” designation.
The project will contribute to increased regional demand for electricity, natural gas, and
communication services; however, it will be subject to standard energy conservation measures
that will reduce potential impacts. Such services are provided by private companies that evaluate
service needs based on customer demand, and project-related impacts will be less than
significant.
The subject property is within the energy service area of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). A 10-
foot wide, north-south trending easement of IID crosses the property and includes several
transformers and other equipment onsite. The proposed project may require relocation of this
equipment within the easement. Impacts would occur within the project boundaries and would not
affect other properties in the project vicinity or IID service area. Site development activities would
be coordinated with IID and the City to assure that impacts are minimized. The level of impact
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 39 of 42
associated with the relocation of IID lines and equipment within the project would occur within the
disturbance area considered throughout this document, and would be less than significant,
consistent with other impacts analyzed in this document.
The proposed project is consistent with the following policies of the PDGP:
Public Utilities and Services Element
Policy 1.1: Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development
projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated
by that development (regional shallow ground water).
Policy 1.2: On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible,
stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated on-site in other ways
that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.
Policy 1.3: Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural
stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales
and permeable paving.
Policy 1.10: Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall incorporate
stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch
basins shall be prohibited.
Policy 1.12: Retention basins. Encourage storm water retention basins, especially in the
City Center Area, to be underground in future development so as to achieve the most
efficient use of land and compact development and promote the urban character goals of
the General Plan.
Policy 1.13: Soil erosion. Require the prevention of water-born soil erosion from sites,
especially those undergoing grading and mining activities.
Policy 2.2: Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects
to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that
development.
Policy 2.3: Sewer connections. In the event that a sewer line exists in the right-of-way
where a lateral line connection is required to serve a lot, require a sewer connection at the
time the lot is developed.
Policy 3.4: Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects
to pay for their fair share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that
project.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1.2: Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water
consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 40 of 42
The proposed project is consistent with the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use designation
assigned by the PDGP and evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that implementation of the
PDGP would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems. No mitigation
measures were required or provided. The proposed project’s impacts to utilities are expected to
be consistent with those of other multifamily land uses described and allowed in the General Plan,
and no peculiar or project-specific demand is expected beyond that of a typical multifamily
residential use. The proposed project would not result in any new impacts or significant findings
or increase the severity of impacts identified in the PDGP EIR. The impact was adequately
addressed in the EIR and would not change from that identified in the EIR.
Determination:
• There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the project or subject property that would change
or affect the utility or service system impacts analyzed in the PDGP EIR. The parcel is
currently designated as “Small Town Neighborhood” and will develop as a multifamily
residential development that is consistent with “Small Town Neighborhood” uses.
• Impacts of the proposed project on utilities and service systems were analyzed in the
certified PDGP EIR.
• There are no significant off-site or cumulative utilities/service systems impacts associated
with the proposed project that were not addressed in the EIR, as the project is not more
intensive than the “Small Town Neighborhood” land use assigned to it in the PDGP and
analyzed in the EIR.
• There is no substantial new information indicating that utilities/service systems impacts of
the project would be more severe than those described in the EIR. No changes have
occurred on the subject parcel or in the project area that would require further
environmental analysis.
IV. Findings
As demonstrated in the analysis herein, the proposed project is consistent with the land use
designation assigned to the subject property in the City of Palm Desert General Plan. It is
consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR that was certified in 2016. Potential project-
related impacts, including cumulative and off-site impacts, were fully addressed in the EIR, and
applicable mitigation measures were provided to reduce project-specific impacts.
There are no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that are peculiar to the project or its site
that have not already been fully addressed in a previous environmental analysis or that cannot be
substantially mitigated through the application of uniformly applied standards and policies.
Applicable conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures have been cited, where applicable,
and they will be implemented through project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances,
or conditions of approval. Implementation of the project would not result in any new or altered
impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR.
There is no substantial new information that would result in more severe impacts than those
anticipated by the EIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15183, the project
qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review, and no further analysis of the
project is required. Findings are summarized in the following table.
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 41 of 42
Table 3
Compliance with CEQA Section 15183
Environmental
Resource Topic
(b)(1)
Impacts
potentially
peculiar to
the
project or
parcel?
(b)(2)
Impacts
analyzed as
significant
effects in a
prior EIR
on the
zoning
action,
general
plan or
community
plan, with
which the
project is
consistent?
(b)(3)
Potentially
significant
off-site or
cumulative
impacts
not
discussed
in the prior
EIR?
(b)(4)
Substantial
new
information
showing a
more
severe
adverse
impact
than in the
prior EIR?
(c) Impact is
not peculiar
to parcel or
project, has
been
addressed
as a
significant
effect in the
prior EIR, or
can be
substantially
mitigated by
the
imposition
of uniformly
applied
development
policies or
standards?
Aesthetics No Yes No No Yes
Agriculture & Forestry
Resources No Yes No No Yes
Air Quality No Yes No No Yes
Biological Resources No Yes No No Yes
Cultural Resources No Yes No No Yes
Geology & Soils No Yes No No Yes
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions No Yes No No Yes
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials No Yes No No Yes
Hydrology & Water
Quality No Yes No No Yes
Land Use & Planning No Yes No No Yes
Mineral Resources No Yes No No Yes
Noise No Yes No No Yes
Population & Housing No Yes No No Yes
Public Services No Yes No No Yes
Recreation No Yes No No Yes
Transportation No Yes No No Yes
Utilities & Service
Systems No Yes No No Yes
WNG Palm Desert
CEQA 15183 Analysis
Page 42 of 42
Appendix A
Cultural Resources Report
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 694-520-019 AND -020
City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Palm Desert
Planning/Land Development Division
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared for:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Principal
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
March 17, 2022
CRM TECH Contract No. 3832
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
694-520-019 and -020, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: March 17, 2022
For Submittal to: City of Palm Desert
Planning/Land Development Division
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 776-6483
Prepared for: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Principal
Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
(760) 341-4800
Project Size: Approximately 6.8 acres
USGS Quadrangle: Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles (Section 34, T4S R6E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian)
Keywords: Coachella Valley region, western Colorado Desert; no “historical
resources” under CEQA
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In February and March 2022, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.,
CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 6.8 acres of vacant
land in the northern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
The subject property of the study encompasses two parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 694-520-019 and -020, located on the northeastern side of Gerald Ford Drive
and at the western terminus of Paseo Bravo, in the south half of Section 34, T4S R6E,
San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed construction of
a 150-unit apartment complex with multiple two- and three-story residential buildings
as well as a clubhouse and other shared amenities. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead
agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City
with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would
cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA,
that may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH reviewed the results of recent
historical/archaeological resources records searches pertaining to the project vicinity,
initiated a Native American Sacred Lands file search, consulted with the nearby Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, pursued historical background research, and carried
out an intensive-level field survey. Throughout the course of the study, no “historical
resources” were encountered within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, CRM
TECH recommends to the City of Palm Desert a finding of No Impact on “historical
resources.”
No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for this project unless
development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth-moving
operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should
be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and
significance of the finds.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4
Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5
Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5
Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5
Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 6
RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7
Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 7
Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 8
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8
Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 9
Native American Participation ........................................................................................................ 10
Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 10
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 12
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 14
APPENDIX 2: Native American Input ............................................................................................... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area ............................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area .................................................. 4
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 .......................................................................... 9
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................... 9
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 10
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958 ........................................................................ 10
1
INTRODUCTION
In February and March 2022, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., CRM TECH
performed a cultural resources study on approximately 6.8 acres of vacant land in the northern
portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The subject property of
the study encompasses two parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-520-019 and -020,
located on the northeastern side of Gerald Ford Drive and at the western terminus of Paseo Bravo, in
the south half of Section 34, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figures 2, 3).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed construction of a 150-unit
apartment complex with multiple two- and three-story residential buildings as well as a clubhouse
and other shared amenities. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required the
study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.).
The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine whether the project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,”
as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH reviewed the results of recent historical/
archaeological resources records searches pertaining to the project vicinity, initiated a Native
American Sacred Lands file search, consulted with the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. The
following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and conclusion of the study.
Personnel who participated in the study are identified in the appropriate sections, and their
qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangle [USGS 1979])
2
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles [USGS 1978])
3
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area.
4
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Palm Desert lies in the heart of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending
desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic
setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert
country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120
degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is
less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
The irregularly shaped project area consists of two parcels of undeveloped but highly disturbed land
on the northern edge of the City, in an area that is undergoing accelerated residential and commercial
development (Figures 3, 4). It is bounded by Gerald Ford Drive on the southwest, the Spanish Walk
condominium community on the southeast, the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate Highway 10 on
the northeast, and a vacant tract on the northwest.
Formerly used for agriculture, the ground surface in the project area has been cleared, graded, and
thoroughly disturbed in recent decades (Google Earth 1995-2021), leaving little vestige of the native
landscape (Figures 3, 4). The terrain today is entirely level, and the elevation is approximately 155
feet above mean sea level. The surface soil is composed of light grayish brown, fine to medium-
grained sands with clays/silt that have been turned into an engineered fill. The scattered vegetation
remaining on the property consists mostly of small desert shrubs and grasses, such as tumbleweed
and brittlebush, with a few palo verde trees.
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken from an aerial drone on
February 3, 2022; view to the southwest)
5
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led
researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural
sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many
archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian
(ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who
relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the
region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes”
(ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools,
“cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).
The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a
decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied
more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time
period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by
continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal
food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for
food processing were prominent during this time period. The most recent period in Schaefer’s
scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions and
saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern. Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were
associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal
“wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66). It was during this period that brown and
buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.
The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and
resource procurement; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer
(1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and
mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the
shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have
recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types,
ornaments, and cremations.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors
noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-
19th century. The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three
groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm
Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla
Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on
Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following
ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.
6
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead,
membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main
divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans
from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called
their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources.
They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
The Cahuilla people were primarily hunters and gatherers who exploited nearly all of the resources
available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions
of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the
nearby mountains. When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the
resources presented by the body of fresh water. Once the lake had desiccated, they utilized the
available terrestrial resources. They also migrated to the higher elevations of the nearby mountains
to take advantage of the resources and cooler temperatures available in that environment.
The Cahuilla collected seeds, roots, fruits, berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and
screw beans. Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats
and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowls. The Cahuilla hunted with
throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002).
Common tools and utensils included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire
drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from
locally available material as well as exotic material procured through trade or travel. They also used
wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting,
parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving
food and drink (ibid.).
Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from
3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was
decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had
no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated
with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua
Caliente, Morongo, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted
European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in
search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians
ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who
traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail,
an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and
known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella
Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111.
During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal
southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in
1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
7
Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad
stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad and spread further in the 1880s after public land was
opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws
(Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in
the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian
wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and
by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the
region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new
industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread
throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.
The modern community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable
water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail that has since vanished into obscurity (Johnston
1987:120). The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil
Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town (Gunther
1984:373-374). Following the footsteps of Palm Springs and other “cove communities” along
Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the ranks of winter
resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era, characterized by country clubs and golf
courses. The Palm Desert post office was established in 1947, and in 1973, after four unsuccessful
attempts, the community was officially incorporated as the 17th city in Riverside County (ibid.:374).
More recently, growth has been focused on new residential and commercial development, the latter
concentrated mostly along the city’s most widely used thoroughfares, State Route 111 and Interstate
Highway 10.
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
Due to delays caused by facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, a historical/archaeological
resources records search could not be obtained in time from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of
the California Historical Resources Information System. Instead, CRM TECH archaeologist/field
director Daniel Ballester reviewed the records search results for several other studies that were
completed over the past five years in close proximity to the project location for pertinent
information. From this data, Ballester was able to establish the coverage of previous studies in the
vicinity and identify recorded cultural resources within an approximate half-mile radius. As the EIC
has not updated its data collection since the beginning of the pandemic, the coverage was considered
adequate for this study.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH principal investigator/
historian Bai “Tom” Tang. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in
local and regional history, historical maps of the Palm Desert area, and aerial/satellite photographs of
the project vicinity. Among the maps consulted were U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey
plat maps dated 1856 and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1981,
8
which are accessible at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS. The
aerial and satellite images, taken between 1953 and 2021, are available at the websites of the
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online and the library system of the University
of California, Santa Barbara, and through the Google Earth software.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On February 8, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands
File. The NAHC is the State of California’s trustee agency for the protection of “tribal cultural
resources,” as defined by California Public Resources Code §21074, and is tasked with identifying
and cataloging properties of Native American cultural value. In the meantime, CRM TECH also
contacted the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians by electronic mail for information on
potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity and to explore the possibility of
tribal participation in the field inspection. In light of AB 52 requirement for future government-to-
government consultations to be initiated by the City of Palm Desert, other Cahuilla tribes in and
around the Coachella Valley region were not contacted during this study.
FIELD SURVEY
On February 3, 2022, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and project archaeologist Ashley
Conner-Ayala carried out the field survey of the project area. The survey was conducted on foot at
an intensive level by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters
(approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface in the project area was systematically
and closely examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period
(i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility was excellent (90-100%) due to lack of any significant
vegetation growth on the property.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records reviewed during this study, the project area had not been surveyed
previously for cultural resources, and no cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to
its boundaries. Within the half-mile scope of the records search, EIC records indicate a total of
seven previous studies completed between 1980 and 2000 on various tracts of land and linear
features, including the segment of the Union Pacific Railroad adjacent to the northeast project
boundary and a large tract across Gerald Ford Drive to the southwest. These past studies identified
two historical/archaeological sites within the half-mile radius.
Both of the sites dated to the historic period, representing the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific)
Railroad (Site 33-009498) and the San Cayetano (Bell) Ranch (Site 33-5619). No cultural resources
of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—origin were previously recorded within the scope of the
records search. As mentioned above, the Southern Pacific Railroad across the Coachella Valley
were originally built in the 1870s from Los Angeles to Yuma, Arizona, as a part of the “Sunset
9
Route,” the second transcontinental rail line in the U.S. The San Cayetano (Bell) Ranch, once
located nearby on the north side of what is now Interstate Highway 10, was developed in the early
1930s on a 1,100-acre property. With no potential to receive any impact from the project as
proposed, neither of the two sites requires further consideration during this study.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted for this study showed no evidence of any settlement or development
activities in the immediate vicinity of the project area between the 1850s and the 1940s other than
features related to the operation of the adjacent Southern Pacific Railroad (Figures 5-7). Prior to the
completion of the rail line in the 1870s, no man-made features of any kind were known to be present
in the project vicinity (Figure 5). In the 1950s, the project area was part of an expansive tract of
agricultural land along U.S. Highway 60/70/99 (now Interstate Highway 10), and this portion of the
field was occupied by an orchard between then and the early 1970s (Figure 8; UCSB 1952; 1959;
NETR Online 1972).
Farming operations in the project vicinity continued at least into the mid-1980s (NETR Online
1984). Over the next ten years, however, the new driving force in regional growth throughout
southern California, urbanization/suburbanization, drastically and rapidly altered the landscape in
and around the project area. By the mid-1990s, the agricultural fields had been abandoned, and
Gerald Ford Drive had been constructed along the southwestern project boundary. Meanwhile, a
large mobile home and RV park had been established to the south of the project location, which
would eventually include most of the project area by 2005 (NETR Online 1996-2005).
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856.
(Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b)
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source:
USGS 1904)
10
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source:
USGS 1941)
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958.
(Source: USGS 1958)
Just four years later, however, the western portion of the mobile home and RV park had been
removed and redeveloped into the present-day Spanish Walk condominium community, while the
eastern portion would become today’s Emerald Desert RV Resort (NETR Online 2009). The project
area, briefly occupied by several rows of what appeared to be mobile homes along narrow streets
around 2005, was not involved in the Spanish Walk development and has been left vacant since then
(NETR Online 2009-2018; Google Earth 2009-2021).
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In a letter dated March 11, 2022, Lacy Padilla, Archaeologist with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic
Preservation Office, confirms that the project location is considered a part of the tribe’s Traditional
Use Area. On behalf of the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Ms. Padilla requested
copies of all cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project for review by
the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (see Appendix 2). As of this date, the NAHC has not
responded to CRM TECH’s inquiry. In the past, Sacred Lands File searches in the northern Palm
Desert area have typically produced negative results. When the NAHC’s response for this project is
received, it will be forwarded to Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., immediately.
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey of the project area produced completely negative results for potential “historical
resources.” Throughout the course of the survey, no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or
artifact deposits of prehistoric or historical origin were encountered on the property. As stated
11
above, the ground surface in the entire project area has been extensively disturbed, while historic
maps and aerial/satellite photographs identify the sources of the disturbance as agricultural
operations before the mid-1980s, the development and removal of the mobile home and RV park in
the 1990s-2000s era, and construction activities focusing on adjacent land, such as those associated
with Gerald Ford Drive and the Spanish Walk condominium community. Scattered modern refuse
was observed along the boundaries of the property, including landscaping waste and building debris
such as concrete fragments and asphalt fragments, but none of the items are of any historical/
archaeological interest.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area,
and to assist the City of Palm Desert in determining whether such resources meet the official
definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in
particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited
to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or
archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”
More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such
resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically
significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for
the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall
be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A
resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(PRC §5024.1(c))
In summary of the research results presented above, no potential “historical resources” were
previously recorded within the project area, and none were found during the present survey. In
addition, no notable cultural features were known to be present in the project area throughout the
historic period, and the ground surface is the entire project area has been extensively disturbed,
especially during the development and removal of a mobile home and RV park that briefly included
most of the property in the 1990s-2000s era. Based on these findings, and in light of the criteria
listed above, the present study concludes that no “historical resources” exist within the project area.
12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
“historical resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC
§21084.1-2). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be
impaired.” As stated above, this study has not encountered any “historical resources,” as defined by
CEQA, within the project area. Accordingly, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations
to the City of Palm Desert:
• The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical
resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and
Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.
1856b Plat map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.
Google Earth
1995-2021 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity taken in 1995, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2006,
2009, 2011-2013, 2015-2019, and 2021. Available through the Google Earth software.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J.D.
Gunther, Riverside.
Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
13
NETR Online
1972-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity taken in 1972, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2005,
2009, 2010, 2014, 2016, and 2018. http://www.historicaerials.com.
Robinson, W. W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave
Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches
and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date
Gardens, Indio.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning,
California, 1972.
UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara)
1953-1959 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1953 and 1959. FrameFinder,
UCSB Library. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901.
1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1958 Map: Thousand Palms, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1951-1956,
field-checked in 1958.
1978 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected
in 1978.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised.
14
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California,
Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the
Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside.
1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside.
1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory
System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California
State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit,
Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
15
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.
1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 “Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level,”
UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood,
Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the
Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer.
1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California.
1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside.
1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.
1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.
1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.
1984-1998 Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for
various southern California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange
Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural
Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources
management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
16
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo,
California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Field Director, co-author, and contributor to numerous cultural management reports since 2002.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Ashley Conner-Ayala, B.S.
Education
2021 GIS Certification, Pasadena City College, Pasadena.
2020 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
2019 Paleoanthropology Field School, Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia.
2019 M.A.R.I. CRM Field School.
Professional Experience
2021- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2021 Field Technician, Bruce Love Consulting, Littlerock, California.
2020 Archaeological Monitor and Field Technician, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
17
APPENDIX 2
NATIVE AMERICAN INPUT
Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the
Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the APNs 694-520-019 and -020 project. The
project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is
within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the
following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:ngallardo@crmtech.us]
CRM TECH
Ms. Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
March 11, 2022
Re: APNs 694-520-019 and -020
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions
or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6956. You may also email me at
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net.
Cordially,
Lacy Padilla
Archaeologist
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
03-026-2022-001
*A cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist
prior to any development activities in this area.
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from
the information center.
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated
in connection with this project.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
March 28, 2022
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Via Email to: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Re: Proposed Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-520-019 and -020 Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The
results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not
indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural
resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources
in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential
adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated;
if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By
contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to
consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of
notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to
ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify
me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email
address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
hhaines@augustinetribe.com
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
Chairman@cahuilla.net
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
scottmanfred@yahoo.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 694-520-019 and -020 Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
001541
03/28/2022 11:09 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
3/28/2022
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
admin@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
mmirelez@tmdci.org
Cahuilla
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 694-520-019 and -020 Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
001541
03/28/2022 11:09 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
3/28/2022
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOTICE OF ACTION
April 22, 2022
Western National Group
8 Executive Circle
Irvine, CA 92614
Subject: Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of
a Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Notice of Exemption to construct a 150-unit
multi-family (affordable housing) residential community consisting of eight (8) three-story
apartment buildings, a single-story clubhouse, and private outdoor recreation areas on an
6.8-acre parcel adjacent to Spanish Walk along the east side of Gerald Ford Drive, north of
Frank Sinatra Drive, and south of the I-10/Railroad.
The Architectural Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert considered your request and
took the following action at its meeting of April 12, 2022:
By Minute Motion, the Architectural Review Commission approved Case No. PP/CUP22-0004
subject to the following: 1) Revisit parapets to ensure all ends are concealed and/or returned
inward enough to provide the appearance of a three-dimensional mass; 2) Revisit typical parapet
detail and refine the design to demonstrate concealed detail edges; 3) Staff will confirm flashing
details are concealed against clean edges and is included in construction documents; 4)
Landscaping should have provisions in place which ensure it is well maintained and watered
properly; 5) Applicant will be mindful of the need for noise mitigation measures; 6) Applicant shall
call for a planning inspection during framing to ensure parapets are built and concealed as
approved and utility equipment is screened appropriately; and 7) Project revisions will be reviewed
by staff and return to the ARC should there be any items that cannot be resolved with Applicant.
The motion carried with a 5-0 vote. (AYES: Lambell, Latkovic, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Vuksic;
NOES: None; ABSENT: Van Vliet).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert
within 15 days of the date of the decision.
If you have any questions, please contact Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, at (760) 346-0611,
Extension 485 or kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org.
Sincerely,
ROSIE LUA, SECRETARY
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
cc: File
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CASE NO. PP22-0004
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING
COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A PRECISE PLAN REQUEST BY WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
TO DEVELOP A 150-UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMMUNITY AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 75580 GERALD FORD DRIVE
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that this project is consistent with
the City of Palm Desert General Plan, and no further environmental review is required under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Project Location/Description:
Project Location: 75580 Gerald Ford Drive (APNs: 694-500-019, 020)
Project Description: The proposal is a Precise Plan for a new 150-unit affordable apartment
development consisting of eight three-story apartment buildings, one single-story clubhouse, 270
parking spaces, on-site landscaping, and private open space areas.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution
finding that no further environmental review is required under the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning); and approving the
Precise Plan, subject to the conditions.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on June 7,
2022, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s
emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the
Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and-
commissions/planning-commission-information-center.
Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from May 27, 2022, to June 7,
2022.
Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through
Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Kevin Swartz. Please
submit written comments to the Planning Division. If any group challenges the action in court,
issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments
and any questions should be directed to:
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611, Extension 485
kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN MARTIN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY
MAY 27, 2022 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
From: J SCOTT ZUNDEL PERSONAL <jszundel@gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2022 at 9:47:59 AM PDT
To: Martin Alvarez <malvarez@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Bonnie.sanchez@fsresidential.com, Maria.faulkner@fsresidential.com
Subject: HIGH RISE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 6/7/2022 PLANNING COMMISSION
I own a residential unit at Spanish Walk, Palm Desert CA.
I have some questions regarding the application of a developer to build high rise residential units on our
Western boundary.
I am familiar with my rights to get copies of the staff report. I need this as soon as available. How do I
get a copy of the the Commission’s agenda and a copy of the staff report for this project.
I am a supporter of low income houseing at this or any other location but have objections to its site plan,
the design and height of this project. I am especially concerned about their walling off their project and
how their project affects the Imperial Irrigation District’s easement on the North end of this project’s
property and the North end of the Spanish Walk property. That easement, if not walled off would allow
open access to Spanish Walk from this project and would destroy our use of that property as a dog
run and resreational area for Spanish Walk residents.
When I spoke with the developers they seemed totally unaware of the Imperial Irrigation’s easement
and the use of a the easement across their property by the owner of the travel trailer park East of
Spanish Walk. The travel trailer park owns the well site either on this development (not sure) or
immediately West of this development. The owner of the trailer park on the East side of Spanish Walk
travels accross that easement and accross this proposed development on a daily basis. While the
developer promised that their project would be walled off from this development, I DO NOT SEE how
that happens because of the easement but it must be walled off! It would create real problems for
Spanish Walk if its project was not securely walled off from this new development which I believe
requires you and the developer, Imperial Irrigation District and Spanish Walk to resolve this important
issue.
Would it be possible for you to give me the APN for this project so that I can order a PTR and get a copy
of Imperial Irrigation’s easement. If you have a copy of the easement I would like to get a copy.
I am familiar with my rights to get copies of the staff report. I need this as soon as available. How do I
get a copy of the the Commission’s agenda and a copy of the staff report for this project.
Is Zoom the only way to attend the meeting? Isn’t covid OVER? Zoom is no substitute for public
meetings. I realize I need to pay the costs of getting these copies.
THANKS
TEL: (760) 568 0387
EMAIL: SCOTTZ_682@MSN.COM
SCOTT ZUNDEL
SZ
WNG PALM DESERT
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
G-1
PROJECT TEAM
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
LIGHTING:
PROJECT DATA & SHEET INDEX
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is a garden style 3-story walk-up affordable housing project
providing 150 units within 8 buildings. Two building types are proposed, a 12-plex
and a 23-plex building. Each building includes ground fl oor units with generous
covered private patios and the upper levels of central stairways. In addition, a central
laundry facility is provided on the ground fl oor of building #4 to serve the community.
The site is entered from Gerald Ford Drive through a vehicular entry with desert
landscaping and enhanced paving. Site visitors are greeted with the standalone recreation
building containing the leasing offi ces, mailroom, maintenance area, resident lounge,
and resident services. Continuing from the rec building, the resident parking is provided
on a continuous looped road, providing easy access to the apartment buildings and
creating a buffer zone from the surrounding single-family communities and the 10 freeway.
The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.8 stalls/unit for a total of 270
parking stalls. Of the provided parking, 150 spaces are provided at carports.
VICINITY MAP
INDEX
COVER SHEET
GENERAL:
ARCHITECTURE:
LANDSCAPE:
LIGHTING
CIVIL:
SITE
I-1
0
G
E
R
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
.
FRANK SINATRA DR.
G-1
G-2
L.1
L.2
L.3
L.4
L.5
L.6
L.7
L.8
E-0.0
E-1.0
E-2.0
E-3.0
E-3.1
1 OF 2
2 OF 2
C-1
C-2
C-3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SHEET INDEX
PROJECT DATA
LIFE STYLE IMAGERY
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
RECREATION AREA ENLARGEMENT
POCKET PARK AND TYPICAL UNIT COURTYARDS
TREE PLAN
SHRUB PLAN
TREE AND SHRUB PALETTE
WALL AND FENCE PLAN
SITE LIGHTING COVER SHEET
SITE LIGHTING LAYOUT
SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS
SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS
SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS
ALTA SURVEY
ALTA SURVEY
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN
PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS
G-3 AERIAL
G-4 VIEW FROM ENTRY DRIVE
G-5 VIEW OF REC AREA
G-6 RENDERING
A-0.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A-1.1 BUILDING TYPE A - LEVELS 1 & 2
A-1.2 BUILDING TYPE A - LEVEL 3 & ROOF PLAN
A-1.3 BUILDING TYPE A - ELEVATIONS
A-1.4 BUILDING TYPE A - ELEVATIONS
A-2.1 BUILDING TYPE B - LEVELS 1 & 2
A-2.2 BUILDING TYPE B - LEVEL 3 & ROOF PLAN
A-2.3 BUILDING TYPE B - ELEVATIONS
A-2.4 BUILDING TYPE B - ELEVATIONS
A-2.5 MATERIAL BOARD
A-3.1 SECTIONS
A-4.1 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
A-5.1 REC BUILDING
A-5.2 REC BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A-6.1 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN & ELEVATIONS
Western National Group
8 Executive Circle,
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: Brian Gilchrist
TCA Architects
19782 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Contact: Irwin Yau
MJS Lanscape Architecture,
507 30th St,
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Contact: Mark Schattinger
KHR Associates,
17530 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: James H. Kawamura
Salas O’Brien
4745 N. 7th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Contact: Victor Becerra
P: 310.498.3888
www.website.com
bgilchrist@wng.com
P: 949.862.0270
P: 949.862.0289
www.tca-arch.com
iyau@tca-arch.com
P: 949.675.9964
P: 949.433.8076
www.mjs-la.com
mark@mjs-la.com
P: 949.756.6440
C: 949.973.6533
jkawamura@website.com
P: 949.753.1553
www.salasobrien.com
victor.becerra@salasobrien.com
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
G-2PROJECT DATA
SITE INFORMATION
PROJECT ADDRESS:
75580 GERALD FORD DRIVE
PARCEL NUMBER:
694-500-19 & 20
ZONING:
PR - Planned Residential
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant lot
GOVERNING CODES:
2019 California Building Code
2019 California Residential Code
2019 CA Mechanical Code
2019 CA Plumbing Code
2019 CA Electrical Code
2019 CA Energy Code, 2019 CALGreen
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code
TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION:
Type V-B Residential Buildings
NFPA-13R fire sprinkler system
Type V-A Recreation Building
NPFA-13 fire sprinkler system
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION:
R-2 Residential Units
B Leasing
A-3 Residential Amenities
U Maintenance, Carpots, Tash Enclosures
LOT AREA & DENSITY:
Lot Area: 297,064 sf (6.82 ac)
Allowable Density: 55 du/acre
Max Allowable Units: 6.82 * 55 = 375 units
Proposed Density: 22 du/acre
150 units
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION:
Max Allowable: 40’-0”, 3 Stories
Proposed: 37’-6”, 3-Stories
LOT COVERAGE:
Allowable: 50 percent
Proposed:
SETBACKS:
Front yard: 20’-0”
Side yard: 8’-0”
Rear yard: 10’-0”
PROJECT SUMMARIES
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
PARKING SUMMARY
RECREATION BUILDING
BALCONY Average Total #Total
UNIT TYPE AVG. SF* SF*Units Unit Mix Net Rent.
2 Bedrooms:
B1 55 871 39 33,969
B2 72 936 72 67,392
SUBTOTAL 913 111 74% 101,361 SF
3 Bedrooms:
C1 60 1,274 39 49,686
SUBTOTAL 1,274 39 26% 49,686 SF
TOTAL 1007 150 151,047 SF
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks
and balconies.
QTY IN QTY PER
BUILDING TYPE PROJECT UNIT TYPE UNIT NRSF BLDG BLDG NRSF Project TOTAL
B1 871 3 2613 9
B2 936 6 5616 18
SUBTOTAL 9 8,229 SF 27
C1 1,274 3 3822 9
SUBTOTAL 3 3,822 SF 9
BLDG TOTAL 12 12,051 SF 36
B1 871 6 5226 30
B2 936 11*10296 55
SUBTOTAL 17 15,522 SF 85
C1 1,274 6 7644 30
SUBTOTAL 6 7,644 SF 30
BLDG TOTAL 23 23,166 SF 115
*UNIT REMOVED AT BUILDING 4. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS FOR ALTERNATE FLOOR PLAN.
3
5BUILDING B
BLDGS 4*,5,6,7,8
BUILDING A
BLDGS 1,2,3
LEASING 977 SF
MAILROOM 427 SF
LOUNGE 380 SF
OUTDOOR REC AREA 470 SF
RESIDENT SERVICES 305 SF
RESIDENT SERVICES 311 SF
MAINTENANCE 256 SF
BLDG TOTAL 3,126 SF
*CIRCULATION,RESTROOMS,ANDSTORAGEAREASEXCLUDED
QTY IN UNITS PER TOTAL UNITS NRSF PER *GROSS AREA NRSF PROJECT TOTAL
BUILDING TYPE PROJECT BUILDING PER BLDG TYPE BUILDING PER BUILDING TOTAL BUILDING AREA
BUILDING A 3 6 36 12,051 SF 14,474 SF 36,153 SF 43,422 SF
BUILDING B 5 23 114 23,166 SF 31,821 SF 115,830 SF 159,105 SF
TOTAL 8 150 151,983 SF 202,527 SF
*FloorareaincludesallhabitablespacesasdefinedintheBuildingCodeonalllevelsandmezzanines,interiorbalconies,lofts,andclosets,basements,
enclosedandroofed;balconies,corridors,storage,equipmentrooms.Stairwaysandelevatorsarecountedatgroundlevelonly.
REQUIRED PARKING
Unit Type # Units Ratio Total
2+ Bedrooms 150 2.0 300
300
BICYCLE PARKING - RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED/PROVIDED
Ratio # STALLS Total
Short-term 5% 300 15
Long-Term 5% 300 15
TOTAL 30
REQUIRED
RATIO TOTAL PARK'G TOTAL REQ.
Assigned 2% X 270 6
Van Accessible (9'x18')1
Standard Accessible (9'x18')5
TOTAL 6
REQUIRED
RATIO TOTAL PARK'G TOTAL REQ.
10% X 270 27
PROVIDED PARKING
Carport 9'-0" x 18'-0"149
Open 9'-0" x 18'-0"86
EV 9'-0" x 18'-0"27
Accessible Cvr'd 9'-0" x 18'-0"1
Accessible 9'-0" x 18'-0"7
TOTAL 270
1.8
RATIO
UNIT SUMMARY VEHICLE PARKING
BICYCLE PARKING
ACCESSIBLE PARKING
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
BUILDING SUMMARY
BUILDING UNIT MIX
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
G-3AERIAL
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
G-4VIEW FROM ENTRY DRIVE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
G-5VIEW OF REC AREA
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
G-6VIEW OF COURTYARD
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-0.130’0’60’120’ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
LAUNDRY
REC BUILDING
BLDG TYPE A
BLDG 1
EVA
REC AREA
BLDG TYPE A
BLDG 2
BLDG TYPE A
BLDG 3
BLDG TYPE B
BLDG 4
BLDG TYPE B
BLDG 5
BLDG TYPE B
BLDG 6
BLDG TYPE B
BLDG 7
BLDG TYPE B
BLDG 8
UTILITY EASEMENT
GERALD
F
O
RD DRIVE
CARPOT, TYP.TRASH ENCLOSURE, TYP.
EXISTING TRANSFORMER AND SWITCH GEAR,
TO BE ABANDONDED OR RELOCATED
(850 SF)
BUILDING SUMMARY
QTY IN UNITS PER TOTAL UNITS NRSF PER *GROSS AREA NRSF PROJECT TOTAL
BUILDING TYPE PROJECT BUILDING PER BLDG TYPE BUILDING PER BUILDING TOTAL BUILDING AREA
BUILDING A 3 6 36 12,051 SF 14,474 SF 36,153 SF 43,422 SF
BUILDING B 5 23 114 23,166 SF 31,821 SF 115,830 SF 159,105 SF
TOTAL 8 150 151,983 SF 202,527 SF
*FloorareaincludesallhabitablespacesasdefinedintheBuildingCodeonalllevelsandmezzanines,interiorbalconies,lofts,andclosets,basements,
enclosedandroofed;balconies,corridors,storage,equipmentrooms.Stairwaysandelevatorsarecountedatgroundlevelonly.
PARKING SUMMARY
PROVIDED PARKING
Carport 9'-0" x 18'-0"149
Open 9'-0" x 18'-0"86
EV 9'-0" x 18'-0"27
Accessible Cvr'd 9'-0" x 18'-0"1
Accessible 9'-0" x 18'-0"7
TOTAL 270
1.8
RATIO
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-1.18’0’16’32’BUILDING TYPE A - LEVELS 1 & 2
C1
B1
B2B2
UTILITY
C1
B1
B2B2
WALL ABOVE
BUILDING TYPE A - LEVEL 2
BUILDING TYPE A - LEVEL 1
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-1.28’0’16’32’BUILDING TYPE A - LEVEL 3 & ROOF PLAN
C1
B1
B2B2
EXTERIOR
PLASTER SHELF
EXTERIOR
PLASTER SHELF
OPEN TO
BELOW
ROOF ACCES
LADDER
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ON PLATFOM, TYPICAL
ROOF ACCESS HATCH, TYP.
ROOF DRAIN W/
OVERFLOW, TYPICALPARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
BUILDING TYPE A - ROOF PLAN
BUILDING TYPE A - LEVEL 3
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-1.3BUILDING TYPE A - ELEVATIONS
STAIR / ENTRYUNIT C1 UNIT B1
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
UNIT B2UNIT B2UNIT B1
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
AW - 1 S - 1C - 1 W - 1 PM - 1
L - 1
R - 1
S - 1 C - 1 AW - 1W - 1
RI
G
H
T
FRONT
VIEW
MATERIAL LEGEND
KEY MAP
S-1 STUCCO
C-1 COMPOSITIVE SIDING
D-1 METAL DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPER
R-1 COMPOSITIVE RAILING
AW-1 METAL AWNING
W-1 VINYL WINDOW
PM-1 PERFORATED METAL
L-1 WALL SCONCE
FRONT
RIGHTPERSPECTIVE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-1.4BUILDING TYPE A - ELEVATIONS
UNIT B2 UNIT B2
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
UNIT C1UNIT B2
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
S - 1 D - 1C - 1 R - 1W - 1
S - 1 C - 1AW - 1W - 1
VIEW REAR
LE
F
T
LE
F
T
MATERIAL LEGEND
KEY MAP
REAR
LEFTPERSPECTIVE
S-1 STUCCO
C-1 COMPOSITIVE SIDING
D-1 METAL DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPER
R-1 COMPOSITIVE RAILING
AW-1 METAL AWNING
W-1 VINYL WINDOW
PM-1 PERFORATED METAL
L-1 WALL SCONCE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-2.18’0’16’32’BUILDING TYPE B - LEVELS 1 & 2
B2 B2 B2 B2
C1
B1B1
C1
UTILITY
WALL ABOVE
LAUNDRY
STORAGE
WAITING AREA
B2 B2 B2 B2
C1
B1B1
C1
EXTERIOR PLASTER
SHELF
BUILDING TYPE B - LEVEL 2
BUILDING TYPE B - LEVEL 1
BUILDING #4 - LAUNDRY
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-2.28’0’16’32’BUILDING TYPE B - LEVEL 3 & ROOF PLAN
B2 B2 B2
C1
B1B1
C1
OPEN TO
BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
ROOF
Ǖ
ROOF ACCESS LADDER, TYP.
ROOF BELOW
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ON PLATFOM, TYPICAL
ROOF DRAIN W/
OVERFLOW, TYPICAL
ROOF ACCESS HATCH, TYP.
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 66"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
CORRIDOR BELOW, TYP.
BUILDING TYPE B - LEVEL 3
BUILDING TYPE B - ROOF PLAN
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-2.38’0’16’32’BUILDING TYPE B - ELEVATIONS
FRONT
STAIR / ENTRYUNIT B1 UNIT C1UNIT B1STAIR / ENTRYUNIT C1
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
RIGHT
UNIT C1 UNIT B2
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
S - 1 S - 1
S - 1C - 1
C - 1
AW - 1
W - 1
W - 1
PM - 1R - 1L - 1
RI
G
H
T
VIEW
FRONT
MATERIAL LEGEND
KEY MAP
FRONT
RIGHTPERSPECTIVE
S-1 STUCCO
C-1 COMPOSITIVE SIDING
D-1 METAL DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPER
R-1 COMPOSITIVE RAILING
AW-1 METAL AWNING
W-1 VINYL WINDOW
PM-1 PERFORATED METAL
L-1 WALL SCONCE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-2.48’0’16’32’BUILDING TYPE B - ELEVATIONS
REAR
UNIT B2UNIT B2UNIT B2UNIT B2
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
LEFT
UNIT C1UNIT B2
LEVEL 1
+/
-
3
7
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
"
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ROOF
HIGHEST POINT
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
4'
-
1
"
TOP OF
PARAPET
S - 1
S - 1C - 1
D - 1 C - 1
AW - 1
W - 1
W - 1
R - 1
VIEW REAR
LE
F
T
MATERIAL LEGEND
KEY MAP
REAR
LEFTPERSPECTIVE
S-1 STUCCO
C-1 COMPOSITIVE SIDING
D-1 METAL DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPER
R-1 COMPOSITIVE RAILING
AW-1 METAL AWNING
W-1 VINYL WINDOW
PM-1 PERFORATED METAL
L-1 WALL SCONCE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-2.5MATERIAL BOARD
20/30 STUCCO FINISH S-1
GREEK VILLA SW 7551 OR SIM.EARTHEN JUG SW 7703 OR SIM.BLACK FOX SW 70220 OR SIM.
COMPOSITE SIDING C-1COMPOSITE RAILING R-1PERFORATED METAL PANEL PM-1
SW 7551 GREEK VILLA OR SIM.
STUCCO
*NOTE DIGITAL COLORS MAY NOT BE ACCURATELY REPRESENT OF REAL WORLD COLORS
METAL ACCENTSRAILINGS
ALURA RED ROCK FALLS OR SIM.*FINAL PATTERN TBD
MATERIALS
COLORS
*NOTE IMAGES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND REPRESENTATIVE OF DESIGN INTENT ONLY
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-3.1SECTIONS
8"
(+
/
-
)
3
7
'
-
6
"
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
6'
-
1
"
T.O. STH'G
T.O. STH'G
T.O. STH'G
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PARAPET
4'
-
6
"
M
I
N
.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ON PLATFORM, TYP.
12" SHADE FIN, TYP.
UNITSUNITS
6'
-
0
"
5"
+/
-
3
7
'
-
6
"
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
T.O. STH'G
T.O. STH'G
T.O. STH'G
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PARAPET
1'-0" MIN.
UNITSUNITS
6'
-
0
"
8"
(+
/
-
)
3
7
'
-
6
"
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
H
E
I
G
H
T
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
10
'
-
1
"
T.O. STH'G
T.O. STH'G
T.O. STH'G
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PARAPET
3'
-
6
"
MI
N
.
UNITS
3/<:22'6+($7+,1*
(;7(5,253/$67(56<67(0
29(5:$7(55(6,67,9(%$55,(5
3/$67(56723
0(7$/&23,1*:,7+:$7(57,*+7
-2,176(('(7$,/
6,1*/(3/<0(0%5$1(:5$3
29(53$5$3(7
6,1*/(3/<522),1*6<67(0
6+$3('[7233/$7(
0,17232)
:$//$%9522)67+
*
5()(572(/(9$7,216
(;7(5,253/$67(56<67(0
&20326,7(6,',1*
&20326,7(75,0
9(5,)<:%/'*3/$16
0,1
(;7(5,253/$67(56<67(0
&20326,7(6,',1*
&20326,7(75,0
:$//%(<21'
6/23(6,//3(5)2270,1
127(
$//(;326('67((/$1'
&211(&7,21%2/7672%(
3$,17('$1'32:'(5&2$7('
81,7))
81,7
81,7
'(&.
'(&.
(;7(5,253/$67(56<67(0
[67((/7235$,/
[&20326,7(5$,/,1*
67((/648$5(3,&.(76
[67((/%277205$,/
*877(5:,7+63,77(53$,17('720$7&+$'-$&(17&2/25
6(/)$'+(5,1*)/$6+,1*
0(7$/.1,)(3/$7($1'$77$&+0(173/$7(
'5,3('*(
&217,182869(17:,7+,16(&76&5((1
(/$6720(5,&'(&.&2$7,1*256,06/23(66+$//%(0$;,080
$1'0,1,080
0$;,080&52666/23(
)$&(2):$//%(<21'
81,7$))
6/23(
%8,/783)5$0,1*$1'6+($7+,1*$65(48,5('726/23(72'5$,1
$/,*1
[&20326,7(5$,/,1*
3
1 1
2
OVERALL SITE SECTION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
SECTION C
SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”
SECTION B
SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”
SECTION A
SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”
TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - 1
SCALE: 3” = 1’-0”
TYPICAL RECESSED WINDOW DETAIL - 2
SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”
TYPICAL BALCONY/RAILING DETAIL - 3
SCALE: 1” = 1’-0”
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
IN
T
E
R
S
T
ATE
1
0
GE
R
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
.
*NOTE: ALL DETAILS ARE CONCEPTUAL FOR DESIGN INTENT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-4.14’0’8’16’TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
DECK
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
DECK
KITCHEN
LIVING
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
DECK
KITCHEN
LIVING
W.I.C.
DINING
UNIT B1
871 SF
UNIT B2
936 SF
UNIT C1
1,215 SF
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-5.14’0’8’16’REC BUILDING PLANS
MAIL
LEASING
977 SFBREAK ROOM
RESIDENT
SERVICES
311 SF
OFFICE
CONFERENCE/FLEX
LARGE PARCEL
RESTROOMRESTROOM
OFFICE
B.O.H.
IDF
LOUNGE
380 SF
RESIDENT
SERVICES
305 SF
MAINTENANCE
258 SF
12'-0" x 12'-0"
12'-0" x 12'-0"
12'-0" x 15'-0"
PERFORATED METAL
SHADE TRELLIS
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ON PLATFORM, TYPICAL
ROOF DRAIN, TYPICAL
OVERFLOW SCUPPER, TYPICAL
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 42"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 36"
PARAPET
T.W. = +/- 54"
FLOOR PLANROOF PLAN
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-5.24’0’8’16’REC BUILDING ELEVATIONS
10
'
-
1
"
5'
-
6
"
TOP OF PLATE
TOP OF PARAPET
10
'
-
1
"
5'
-
6
"
12
'
-
0
"
TOP OF PLATE
TOP OF PLATE
TOP OF PARAPET
10
'
-
1
"
5'
-
6
"
TOP OF PLATE
TOP OF PARAPET
10
'
-
1
"
5'
-
6
"
TOP OF PLATE
TOP OF PARAPET
S - 1
S - 1S - 1
S - 1 SF - 1 S - 1 C - 1
C - 1C - 1
C - 1 PM - 1
PM - 1
MATERIAL LEGEND
S-1 STUCCO
C-1 COMPOSITIVE SIDING
D-1 METAL DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPER
SF-1 STOREFRONT
W-1 VINYL WINDOW
PM-1 PERFORATED METAL
FRONTLEFT
REARRIGHT
PERSPECTIVE
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
WESTERN NATIONAL
GROUP
TCA # 2021-050
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
APRIL 01, 2022
A-6.10’16’8’4’TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN & ELEVATIONS
!
"
!
"
!
"
#
"
#
"
#
"
13'-3"
S - 1
S - 1
S - 1
S - 1
FRONTLEFT
REARRIGHT
FLOOR PLAN 1/4”=1’-0”
MATERIAL LEGEND
S-1 STUCCO
C-1 COMPOSITIVE SIDING
D-1 METAL DOWNSPOUT AND SCUPPER
SF-1 STOREFRONT
W-1 VINYL WINDOW
PM-1 PERFORATED METAL
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
LIFESTYLE IMAGERY L.1
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
60’30’15’0’
N.A.P
ENHANCED LANDSCAPED EDGE
WITH ROCK OUTCROPPING
IN ORGANIC MODERN FORMS
GER
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
.
DOG PARK (1,395 sf)
• turf
• bench seating
• 42” H. fencing
• shade sail
PLAYGROUND
• see enlargement
sheet L.3
PARK AND OUTDOOR
ENTERTAINMENT
• see enlargement
sheet L.3
LAUNDRY
REC BUILDING
EVA
BLDG 4
BLDG 3
BLDG 2
BLDG 1 BLDG 5 BLDG 6 BLDG 8BLDG 7
SPANISH WALK
UTILITY EASEMENT
NO TREES PROPOSED
POCKET PARKS AND TYPICAL
UNIT COURTYARDS
• see enlargement | sheet L.4
CARPORT (TYP.)TRASH ENCLOSURE (TYP.)
VACANT
L.2
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
RECREATION AREA ENLARGEMENT
20’10’5’0’
PARK
• turf (920 sf)
• dg picnic area
• shade umbrellas
OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT
• shade structure
• enhanced paving
• built-in bbqs (2)
• dining table
• lounge seating
• seat wall
• specimen tree
PLAYGROUND (3,023 sf)
• play structure
• resilient surfacing
• decomposed granite
• shade sails
• bench seating
• specimen trees
• sand play area
ENHANCED ENTRY LANDSCAPING
• concrete pavers
• monument wall
• enhanced desert landscape
REC BUILDING
LAUNDRY
MAIL
PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE
L.3
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
POCKET PARK AND TYPICAL UNIT COURTYARDS
20’10’5’0’
ENLARGED PRIVATE PATIOS - TYP.
COURTYARD ENTRY
• dg carpet
• accent tree
• concrete walk
BUILDING ENTRY
• concrete pavers
POCKET PARK
• lawn
• matching height palms
• benches
ENHANCED LANDSCAPED EDGE WITH
ROCK OUTCROPPING IN
ORGANIC MODERN FORMS
ENLARGED PATIOS WITH DIRECT ACCESS
PROPOSED BOLLARD PATH LIGHT
L.4
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACACIA ANEURA
MULGA
24"BOX LOW 18
ACACIA STENOPHYLLA
SHOESTRING ACACIA
24"BOX LOW 58
BRAHEA ARMATA
MEXICAN BLUE PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 12
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS
WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH
24"BOX MODERATE 13
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW
24"BOX MODERATE 12
CITRUS X AURANTIIFOLIA 'DWARF BEARSS SEEDLESS'
DWARF BEARSS SEEDLESS LIME
24"BOX MODERATE 2
FRAXINUS TEXENSIS
TEXAS ASH
24"BOX MODERATE 3
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` TM
SWAN HILL OLIVE
48"BOX LOW 11
PARKINSONIA X `DESERT MUSEUM`
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
48"BOX LOW 13
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA `MEDJOOL`
DATE PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 15
PROSOPIS GLANDULOSA 'MAVERICK' TM
MAVERICK THORNLESS HONEY MESQUITE
36"BOX LOW 53
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
36"BOX MODERATE 5
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 6
X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS 'PINK DAWN'
PINK DAWN CHITALPA
36"BOX LOW 24
PLANT SCHEDULE
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACACIA ANEURA
MULGA
24"BOX LOW 18
ACACIA STENOPHYLLA
SHOESTRING ACACIA
24"BOX LOW 58
BRAHEA ARMATA
MEXICAN BLUE PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 12
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS
WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH
24"BOX MODERATE 13
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW
24"BOX MODERATE 12
CITRUS X AURANTIIFOLIA 'DWARF BEARSS SEEDLESS'
DWARF BEARSS SEEDLESS LIME
24"BOX MODERATE 2
FRAXINUS TEXENSIS
TEXAS ASH
24"BOX MODERATE 3
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` TM
SWAN HILL OLIVE
48"BOX LOW
11
PARKINSONIA X `DESERT MUSEUM`
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
48"BOX LOW 13
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA `MEDJOOL`
DATE PALM
36"BOX MODERATE
15
PROSOPIS GLANDULOSA 'MAVERICK' TM
MAVERICK THORNLESS HONEY MESQUITE
36"BOX LOW 53
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
36"BOX MODERATE 5
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 6
X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS 'PINK DAWN'
PINK DAWN CHITALPA
36"BOX LOW 24
PLANT SCHEDULE
TREE PLAN
60’30’15’0’
N.A.P
GER
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
.
LAUNDRY
REC BUILDING
EVA
BLDG 4
BLDG 3
BLDG 2
BLDG 1 BLDG 5 BLDG 6 BLDG 8BLDG 7
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES: 245
LOW WATER USE: 177 (72%)
MODERATE WATER USE: 68 (28%)
NOTE:
NO TREES PROPOSED IN 30’
EASEMENT AREA
L.5
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
ENHANCED DESERT - 21,717 S.F. (26% OF SITE)
PERIMETER - 22,346 S.F. (27% OF SITE)
INTERNAL STREETSCAPE - 24,310 S.F. (29% OF SITE)
PASEOS BETWEEN BUILDINGS - 8,499 S.F. (10% OF SITE)
GERALD FORD DRIVE SETBACK - 6,616 S.F. (8% OF SITE)
Shrub Zones:
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 83,488 SF
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CA
09.17.2021
NORTH
0 15' 30'60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
ENHANCED DESERT - 21,717 S.F. (26% OF SITE)
PERIMETER - 22,346 S.F. (27% OF SITE)
INTERNAL STREETSCAPE - 24,310 S.F. (29% OF SITE)
PASEOS BETWEEN BUILDINGS - 8,499 S.F. (10% OF SITE)
GERALD FORD DRIVE SETBACK - 6,616 S.F. (8% OF SITE)
Shrub Zones:
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 83,488 SF
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CA
09.17.2021
NORTH
0 15' 30'60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
SHRUB ZONE PLAN
60’30’15’0’
N.A.P
GER
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
.
LAUNDRY
REC BUILDING
EVA
BLDG 4
BLDG 3
BLDG 2
BLDG 1 BLDG 5 BLDG 6 BLDG 8BLDG 7
FOR SHRUB LIST SEE SHEET L.7
L.6
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION CONCEPT FOR THE LANDSCAPED AREAS:
PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COMPANY A MECHANICAL DEVICE TO DISTRIBUTE WATER AND ENSURE PLANT SURVIVAL IN THE MOST EFFICIENT
MANNER AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME THAT LEAST INTERFERES WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESIDENTS.
CONCEPT: THE SYSTEM WILL DERIVE ITS WATER FROM THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT . ALL POINTS OF CONNECTIONS WILL BE PROTECTED BY A BACKFLOW
PREVENTION UNIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THE SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE VARIOUS TYPES OF IRRIGATION
COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA BEING WATERED AND INFILTRATION RATES OF THE SOIL WITH MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES. A MAJORITY OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA WILL
BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP TUBING. THE SYSTEM WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A "SMART CONTROLLER" AND MOISTURE SENSING EQUIPMENT. VALVES
PROGRAMMED FROM AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS WILL MAXIMIZE EFFICIENT WATER APPLICATION.
TO AVOID WASTED WATER, THE CONTROLS WILL BE OVERSEEN BY A FLOW MONITOR THAT WILL DETECT ANY BROKEN SPRINKLER HEADS TO STOP THAT STATION'S
OPERATION, ADVANCING TO THE NEXT WORKABLE STATION. IN THE EVENT OF PRESSURE SUPPLY LINE BREAKAGE, IT WILL COMPLETELY STOP THE OPERATION OF THE
SYSTEM. ALL MATERIAL WILL BE NONFERROUS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BRASS PIPING INTO AND OUT OF THE BACKFLOW UNITS. ALL WORK WILL BE IN THE BEST
ACCEPTABLE MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY. WATERING WILL CONFORM WITH CITY OF PALM
DESERT WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS.
Preliminary Plant Palette
PALM DESERT, CA
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OVERALL LANDSCAPING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE A DISTINCT VISUAL IMPRESSION AND BUILDING IDENTITY, SOFTEN THE DESERT EXPERIENCE, PROVIDE
THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AESTHETIC STANDARDS COMPLIMENTED BY THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT WILL ASSURE AN ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT ENHANCING
THE QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG ITS RESIDENTS..
THE FOLLOWING PLANT MATERIAL AS SELECTED IS COMPLIANT WITH CITY OF PALM DESERT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE GUIDE - DESERT FLORA PALETTE.
Shrub Zones:
Irrigation Concept Note:
Botanical Name Common Name
ENHANCED DESERT ( 21,717 SF | 26% OF TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SHRUBS: 2,716
Large shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 5' o.c.)
Caesalpinea pulcherrima Red Bird of Paradise
Calliandra eriophylla Fairy Duster
Fouquieria entata Jacob Cactus
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Tecoma stans Yellow Bells
Thevetia peruviana Yellow Oleander
Medium Shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 4' o.c. )
Agave species Agave
Bougainvillea species Bouganivillea
Callistemon v. 'Little John'Dwarf Bottlebrush
Dalea pulchra Indigo Bush
Daysilirion wheeleri Spoon Yucca
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Lantana camara Bush Lantana
Olea 'Little Ollie'Little Ollie Olive
Salvia greggii Red Sage
Low Shrubs, Grasses and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size at 3' o.c.)
Aloe species Aloe
Echinocactus grusonii Barrel Cactus
PERIMETER ( 22,346 SF | 27% OF TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SHRUBS: 2,765
Large shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 3' o.c.)
Caesalpinea pulcherrima Red Bird of Paradise
Dodonea viscosa Hop Bush
Larrea tridentata Creosote Bush
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Medium Shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size)
Agave species Agave
Baccharis species Desert Broom
Bougainvillea species Bouganivillea
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Low Shrubs, Grasses and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size)
Encelia farinosa Brittlebrush
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose
INTERNAL STREETSCAPE ( 24,310 SF | 29% OF TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SHRUBS: 2,980
Large shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 3' o.c.)
Calliandra eriophylla Fairy Duster
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Tecoma stans Yellow Bells
Thevetia peruviana Yellow Oleander
Medium Shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size)
Agave species Agave
BCassia artemisioides Feathery cassia
Dalea pulchra Indigo Bush
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Lantana camara Bush Lantana
Olea 'Little Ollie'Little Ollie Olive
Salvia greggii Red Sage
Low Shrubs, Grasses and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size)
Aloe species Aloe
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose
Botanical Name Common Name
PASEOS BETWEEN BUILDINGS ( 8,499 SF | 10% OF AREA)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SHRUBS: 1,033
Large shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 3' o.c.)
Caesalpinea pulcherrima Red Bird of Paradise
Calliandra eriophylla Fairy Duster
Carnegiea gigantea Saguaro
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Tecoma stans Yellow Bells
Thevetia peruviana Yellow Oleander
Medium Shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size)
Agave species Agave
Bougainvillea species Bouganivillea
Callistemon 'Little John'Dwarf Bottlebrush
Cassia artemisioides Feathery cassia
Dalea pulchra Indigo Bush
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Olea 'Little Ollie'Little Ollie Olive
Russelia equisetoformis Firecracker Plant
Salvia greggii Red Sage
Low Shrubs, Grasses and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size)
Aloe species Aloe
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose
GERALD FORD DRIVE SETBACK ( 6,616 SF | 8% OF AREA)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SHRUBS: 822
Large shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 3' o.c.)
Caesalpinea pulcherrima Red Bird of Paradise
Fouquieria entata Jacob Cactus
Larrea tridentata Creosote Bush
Leucophyllum species Texas Ranger
Tecoma stans Yellow Bells
Medium Shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size)
Agave species Agave
Bougainvillea species Bouganivillea
Cassia artemisioides Feathery cassia
Dalea pulchra Indigo Bush
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Lantana camara Bush Lantana
Salvia greggii Red Sage
Low Shrubs, Grasses and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size)
Echinocactus grusonii Barrel Cactus
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 83,488 SF
TOTAL NUMBER OF SHRUBS: 10,316
(1 PER 8 SF)
TOTAL PARKING AREA: 168,676
TOTAL ADJACENT LANDSCAPE AREA: 50,229
LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE IN AND ADJACENT TO THE PARKING AREA: 30%
Landscape Percentage Adjacent to Parking Area:
Preliminary Tree List:
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACACIA ANEURA
MULGA
24"BOX LOW 18
ACACIA STENOPHYLLA
SHOESTRING ACACIA
24"BOX LOW 58
BRAHEA ARMATA
MEXICAN BLUE PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 12
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS
WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH
24"BOX MODERATE 13
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW
24"BOX MODERATE 12
CITRUS X AURANTIIFOLIA 'DWARF BEARSS SEEDLESS'
DWARF BEARSS SEEDLESS LIME
24"BOX MODERATE 2
FRAXINUS TEXENSIS
TEXAS ASH
24"BOX MODERATE 3
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` TM
SWAN HILL OLIVE
48"BOX LOW 11
PARKINSONIA X `DESERT MUSEUM`
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
48"BOX LOW 13
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA `MEDJOOL`
DATE PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 15
PROSOPIS GLANDULOSA 'MAVERICK' TM
MAVERICK THORNLESS HONEY MESQUITE
36"BOX LOW 53
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
36"BOX MODERATE 5
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
36"BOX MODERATE 6
X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS 'PINK DAWN'
PINK DAWN CHITALPA
36"BOX LOW 24
PLANT SCHEDULE
TREE AND SHRUB PALETTE
60’30’15’0’
L.7
WNG PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
REVISED: MARCH 28, 2022
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP
WALL AND FENCE PLAN
60’30’15’0’
N.A.P
GER
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
.
LAUNDRY
REC BUILDING
EVA
BLDG 4
BLDG 3
BLDG 2
BLDG 1
BLDG 5 BLDG 6 BLDG 8BLDG 7
KEY
EXISTING MASONRY WALL
NEW 8’ MASONRY WALL
PROPOSED MASONRY SOUND
ATTENUATION WALL TO MATCH
SPANISH WALK
4’ DOG PARK FENCE
TRASH ENCLOSURE with SOLID ROOF
(per architect)
8' SPLIT FACE MASONRY WALLA
8'
2" PRECISION CAP
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE
FENCE POSTS at 8' o.c. MAX.
4'
3" clr.
4' DOG PARK FENCEB
COLOR: TAN
COLOR: WHITE
SPANISH WALK
L.8
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
1"=40'
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
P/L
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED BY:
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
17530 Von Karman - Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614
(949) 756-6440 Fax (949) 756-6444
N5
4
°
3
1
'
5
8
"
W
358
.
3
3
'
690
.
4
3
'
178.56'
P/L
P/L
P/L
P/
L
N90°00'00"E
43.50'
75580 GERALD FORD DRIVE,
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
2
8
0
.
8
2
'
R
/
W
R
/
W
R
/
W
VICINITY MAP
10FWY
SITE
P
A
S
E
O
B
R
A
V
O
AN
I
M
A
D
O
R
/
W
R
/
W
C
/
L
C
/
L
01°1
1
'
5
1
"
R=1,0
5
5
.
0
0
'
L=22
.
0
5
'
17
1
.
9
5
'
N0
0
°
0
0
'
0
0
"
E
149.94'N89°59'24" EP/L
N71°10'24
"
E
N90°00'00" E61.05'
P/LN0°00'00" E55.95'
N35
°
2
8
'
0
2
"
E
298
.
6
2
'
S
O
U
T
H
E
R
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
G
E
R
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
I
V
E
S
1
8
°
2
2
'
2
5
"
E
S35
°
2
8
'
0
2
"
W
11
3
.
0
0
'
N0
0
°
0
0
'
0
0
"
E
P/
L
PARCEL 2
PARCEL MAP WAIVER
LLA NO. 17-49
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP WAIVER
LLA NO. 17-49
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
Δ
GE
R
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
I
V
E
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
D
A
A
B
B
C C
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
WNG PALM DESERT
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
C-1: PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
17530 Von Karman Avenue - Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614
PREPARED BY:
(949) 756-6440
EASEMENTS
GENERAL NOTESVICINITY MAP
10FWY
PRELIMINARY EXCAVATION
QUANTITY ESTIMATE
Δ
GE
R
A
L
D
F
O
R
D
D
R
I
V
E
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
WNG PALM DESERT
WESTERN NATIONAL GROUP PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
C-2: PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
17530 Von Karman Avenue - Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614
PREPARED BY:
(949) 756-6440
EASEMENTS
VICINITY MAP
10FWY
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ATTENDANCE REPORT
Advisory Body:
Prepared By:
Year
Month
Date 4-Jan 18-Jan 1-Feb 15-Feb 1-Mar 15-Mar 5-Apr 19-Apr 3-May 17-May 7-Jun 21-Jun 5-Jul 19-Jul 2-Aug 16-Aug 6-Sep 20-Sep 4-Oct 18-Oct 1-Nov 15-Nov 6-Dec 20-Dec
DeLuna, Nancy -P P -P P -P P -0 0
Greenwood, John -P P -P P -A P -1 1
Gregory, Ron -P P -P P -A P -1 1
Holt, Lindsay -P P -P P -P P -0 0
Pradetto, Joseph -P A -P P -P P -1 1
Palm Desert Municipal Code 2.34.010:
P Present
A Absent
E Excused
-No meeting
Twice Monthly: Six unexcused absences from regular meetings in any twelve-month period shall constitute an automatic resignation of members holding office on boards that meet twice monthly.
Total
Unexcused
Absences
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2022 2022 2022 2022 2022
Total
Absences
Oct Nov Dec
Planning Commission
M. O'Reilly
2022 202220222022202220222022
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
From:Kevin Swartz
To:Melinda Gonzalez
Subject:FW: Spanish Walk-150 units
Date:Monday, June 6, 2022 9:22:07 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image005.png
Hello,
Please forward the below email to the Planning Commission and include it under public record.
Thanks.
Kevin Swartz
Associate Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485
kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: J SCOTT ZUNDEL <jszundel@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Kevin Swartz <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Re: Spanish Walk-150 units
Kevin
Thanks for the responsiveness of you and the City’s planning staff.
I read the staff report. Thank you for sending it.
I am just one person who owns a residential unit adjacent to this new project, but I have some
comments. Some come from me and some from residents of Spanish walk.
Your report says:
“The site currently has an existing eight-foot-high (8’) masonry wall along the east property line. The
applicant will continue the eight-foot-high (8’) wall along the west property line. The north property
line adjacent to the easements will feature an eight-foot-high (8’) sound wall, which complies with
the original 2005 mitigation measure identified within the noise study for railroad noise and
vibration. The front of the sight will remain unfenced.”
You indicate the following “conditions” address my concerns”
“22. The final design of all site walls and fending shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Development Services Department that includes consideration of the easements at the rear end of
the property.”
“26. It is assumed that easements shown on the preliminary grading exhibit are shown correctly and
include all the easements that encumber the subject property. A current preliminary title report for
the site will be required to be submitted at technical plan. The applicant shall secure approval from
all, if any, easement holders for all grading and improvements, including walls and fencing that are
proposed over the respective easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated,
quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no affect.
Should such approvals or alternate actions regarding the easements not be provided, the Applicant
may be required to amend or revise the proposed site configuration as may be necessary”
FACTS:
I can’t measure to the foundation but the existing walls on the West and East of this new project are
6 ft tall. The existing wall on the North of this development appears to be an 8ft wall consisting of
cinderblock which is damaged with holes in several locations. Spanish Walk’s wall on its North
boundary appears to be 11 ft tall. It is exactly 3 feet taller than the cinderblock wall on the
development’s North boundary.
You have indicated that there are two easements on the Northern boundary of both the Spanish
Walk property and the development’s property. Both easements are 30 ft. One is for public access
in favor of the City of Palm Desert (for a contemplated walkway and bike path) and the other is in
favor of IID to maintain / construct its power lines. I have not seen the easements. Could you please
send me copies?
The common wall between Spanish Walk and the new development (6ft tall on Spanish Walk’s West
boundary) ends 45 feet from the North boundary line of both properties. It could be extended 15
feet before it would touch the easement(s).
From the map in the staff report it is hard for me to tell what walls are required and where they will
be required.
MY REQUESTS:
1. First, I am a supporter of low income, medium income, high income housing and for the city
to make it as inexpensive to build as possible. So, I support this low income / middle income
housing project. I wish it were not 3 stories, but staff assures me it meets the City’s 40 ft
height limitation.
2. The developer when it met with the residents of Spanish Walk represented that the wall on its
Northern boundary would be the same height and same slump stone style as the existing wall
on the Spanish Walks and the travel trailer parks Northern boundary. I would like to see that
be specifically required. The Spanish Walk Northern wall is exactly 3 feet taller than the
existing 8ft wall on the new development’s property.
3. The developer when it met with Spanish Walk residents said it would extend the 6ft slump
stone wall on the boundary line between Spanish Walk and the new development (Spanish
Walk’s West boundary and the new developments’ Eastern boundary) to the existing
Northern wall. Although I have not seen the easement(s) but I believe they would not allow
permanent structures in the easement. So, for the developer to fulfill its representation to
the Spanish Walk people it needs to get the consent of YOU, Palm Desert and IID. You could
easily give your consent by abandoning the easement. The reason you acquired it no longer
exists. Spanish Walk, subject to IID’s easement may have a use for it. It is across its property.
If IID won’t allow a permanent wall in its easement, then the developer needs to submit to IID
a design for a part wall and part solid gate and that should be done and approved PIOR to final
City approval of this project. People, kids, pet owners use Spanish Walk land on its Northern
boundary, which is subject to your easement, not having it walled or gated off is a safety
concern for people of Spanish walk.
4. There needs to be a requirement that during construction by the new developer that a solid
secure construction chain link fencing be installed on its boundary with Spanish walk where
there is not an existing wall. This would be across the easement at the North end of Spanish
Walk’s and the new developer’s property along their common boundary.
5. I would luv to see you require the extension by this developer of the median island and turn in
turn out in Gerald Ford to Spanish Walk’s entry. Otherwise, you are going to have about a
100-yard gap between the new development’s entry and the existing Spanish Walk’s entry. I
believe the adjacent property owner is Palm Desert.
6. I would like to see the garbage receptacles presently panned at the new development’s North
East corner to its North West corner if possible.
Please let me know if you have any comments.
From: Kevin Swartz <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:05 PM
To: "jszundel@gmail.com" <jszundel@gmail.com>
Cc: Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Spanish Walk-150 units
Hello,
Per our earlier conversation, attached is the staff report, resolution with the conditions of approval,
and the agenda with the Zoom link for next Tuesday’s Planning Commission meeting.
Conditions of Approval No. 22 and 26 address the fencing and easement concerns.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Kevin Swartz
Associate Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485
kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org
www.cityofpalmdesert.org
Install the Palm Desert In Touch app to stay in touch with your community
Android Apple Mobile Web
From:Kevin Swartz
To:Melinda Gonzalez
Cc:Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:FW: Public Hearing— Case No. PP 22-0004
Date:Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:18:50 AM
Melinda,
Please forward the below email to the Planning Commission.
I just got off the phone with the residents and addressed their questions.
Kevin Swartz
Associate Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485
kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org
-----Original Message-----
From: MIKE WHITTLE <mikewhittle@shaw.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Kevin Swartz <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Re: Public Hearing— Case No. PP 22-0004
Good morning:
We wish to comment on the 150 unit apartment project proposed for 75580 Gerald Ford Drive.
Overall, we have no issue with the project moving forward if approved by the City of Palm Desert.
As you are aware, there is an easement (originally for a bike path system that has since been abandoned by the City
of PD) located along the north boundary of the proposed development and continues west to east on the north
boundary of the existing Spanish Walk condo complexes. The drawings seem to show that this easement area will
be landscaped as part of the project. If this is the case— no issue— other than we would like to see a wall(6ft high)
or a locked gate that would restrict public access at the north-west corner of the existing Spanish Walk property.
Also, we note there is a proposed two left turn lane from Gerald Ford Drive which is great. However, probably less
than a hundred yards further south along Gerald Ford Drive, the existing Spanish Walk development(approx. 330
condos/single family) has no officially marked left turn lane. We believe this results in an unsafe situation as Gerald
Ford is currently at one lane at the turn into Spanish Walk and then expands to two lanes after the turn. When the
apartment complex is developed and the turn lanes and medium improved— we request the Spanish Walk turn
lane(s) be officially installed.
Finally, it was not clear to us in the documentation if the new apartment project is also to be named Spanish Walk
and if the HOA is to be a separate HOA from that of the current Spanish Walk?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mike & Bev Whittle
403-971-7212 cell
200 Paseo Bravo
Spanish Walk
Palm Desert