HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 Agenda Packet - Part 2 (3B attachments)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AND APPROVING A PRECISE
PLAN (PP), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP), AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR A 394-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT ON AN
18.31-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK
SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE
CASE NOS. PP/CUP/EA 22-0006
WHEREAS, Hayes Dietrich, LLC ("Applicant"), submitted applications for a PP, CUP,
and EA for the development of a 394-unit multi-family development community consisting of
13 three-story apartment buildings, one (1) single-story clubhouse building, one (1) two-story
fitness center, two (2) swimming pools, outdoor recreation areas, landscaping, and
associated parking areas on an 18.31-acre site, including related off-site improvements
consisting of constructing of public sidewalks along street frontages, striping for bike lanes
and turn pockets, constructing three (3) vehicle driveways and modifications to the raised
center median on Portola Avenue ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project site has a land use designation of Town Center Neighborhood
TCN) in the Palm Desert General Plan adopted November 10, 2016, and a zoning
designation of Planning Residential (PR-22); 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, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the
City Council as part of the Palm Desert General Plan (SCH# 2015081020); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City
conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the
environment and to evaluate whether an EIR was required; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, the State Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines) and the City of Palm Desert CEQA
Implementation Requirements, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and an
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) hereby attached as
Exhibit A" of this Resolution, were prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is consistent with the development density and use
characteristics considered by the General Plan EIR in the TCN land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the October 25, 2022, consider the request by the Applicant at its meeting
and recommended denial of the project architecture to the Planning Commission of the
above-noted Project request; and
Item 3B - Page 27
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
and recommended denial of the project architecture to the Planning Commission of the
above-noted Project request; and
WHEREAS, Project is a qualifying housing project and subject to the Housing
Accountability Act Gov. Code, § 65589.5; and
WHEREAS, Project is consistent with the objective development standards, as
defined by Gov. Code, § 65589.5, Subd. (h)(2)(B), which were in place at the time that the
application was deemed complete, including but not limited to density, height, setbacks,
parking, open space minimum requirements, and maximum lot coverage; and
WHEREAS, based upon the project consistency with applicable objective standards,
staff is recommending the project be approved pursuant to the requirements of the Housing
Accountability Act Gov. Code, § 65589.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the December 6, 2022, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the
Applicant for approval of the above-noted project request subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred; 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 City Council 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. Findings on Conditional Use Permit. Under PDMC Section 25.72.050(F),
the findings for the tentative map are the following:
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of
this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
The project is located within a property designated Planned Residential (PR) 22
dwelling units per acre. The purpose and character of the PR zone is to provide for a
mixture of residential densities ranging from seven (7) to 22 dwelling units per acre
and include mixed housing types and community facilities. The PR zone permits
multi-family uses through a CUP. The project will develop three-story apartments at
a density of 21.5 units per acre and provide a variety of on-site amenities for future
2
Item 3B - Page 28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
residents of the community. The project conforms to all development standards of
the PR zone and falls within the allowable density range of the subject zoning.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed multifamily housing development. The
site has suitable access, grading, drainage, and zoning to allow the proposed
development. The Project is not located within a hazardous area that would be
subject to flooding, liquefaction, landslide, fault zones, or other natural hazards. The
project does not generate adverse effects that would cause public health problems.
Ground-disturbing activities are conditioned to prepare plans to control fugitive dust.
The project includes a traffic study, and it is anticipated the project will not generate
traffic demand or congestion for the area. The proposed project includes hard
surface pedestrian pathways and connections from the public right-of-way to ensure
walkability throughout. All engineering documents, including the preliminary grading
plan and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), are under review to ensure the
design of the project incorporates the proper improvements, including adequately
sized retention basins for onsite drainage. In addition, the overall building design
ensures the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments.
The proposed development complies with all setbacks (front, rear, and side yards),
lot coverage, and parking requirements of the PR zone. Specifically, to heights, PR
allows for a building height of 40 feet. The three-story buildings vary in roof heights
between 33 feet and 37 feet with tower elements at 40 feet, which complies with the
zoning standards. The request does not include any variances or adjustments.
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the City's General Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The
allowable density for the site has been evaluated by the General Plan. The Applicant
has prepared the appropriate technical studies to assess that the site is physically
suitable to develop. The project is compatible with the existing development pattern
within the surrounding area and with the zoning designations for the surrounding
vacant sites. The property is designated Town Center Neighborhood in the General
Plan. Land Use Policy No. 3.21 (Infill Neighborhoods), in existing developed areas,
the City encourages development that repairs connectivity, adds destinations, and
encourages complete neighborhoods. The project is designed with internal
pedestrian access and provides common area recreational amenities available to all
onsite residents (tenants). The proposed project includes private streets, pathways,
and open spaces intended to allow residents (tenants) to enjoy the project's
3
Item 3B - Page 29
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
amenities, while being able to connect to public pathways, thereby creating a
pedestrian and family-oriented atmosphere.
In addition, Land Use Policy 3.3 (Variety of types of neighborhoods) promotes a
variety of neighborhoods within the City and ensures that neighborhood types are
dispersed throughout the City. The existing homes in the area are a for-sale product,
and the proposed project supports the expansion of housing by providing a for-rent
development within the City. The project promotes multifamily residential that is in
keeping with the mix of higher and lower densities in the area including, single-story
residential developments, which meets the intent of this policy.
SECTION 4. CEQA Findings. The application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of CEQA" Resolution No. 2019-41,
in that the Planning Commission concludes that the Project is consistent with the approved
General Plan and Zoning. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the Planning
Commission finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting
of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Planning Commission further
finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission
further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be
mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the
MND, Initial Study, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning
Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair
argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts and that any
comments received to date regarding the Project have been examined and determined not
to modify the conclusions of the MND or the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the
Planning Commission finds that the MND has not been substantially revised after public
notice of its availability, and recirculation is not required (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15073.5.). The Planning Commission finds that the MND contains a complete, objective,
and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects
the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The proposed 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; and
SECTION 5. Project Approval. The Planning Commission approves the PP, CUP,
EA 22-0006; and
SECTION 6. Approval. The Planning Commission approves and adopts the Project,
subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
4
Item 3B - Page 30
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
ADOPTED ON December 6, 2022.
Nancy De una (Dec 13, 2022 O8:54 PST)
NANCY DE LUNA
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
RICHARD D. CANNONE, AICP
SECRETARY
I, Richard D. Cannone, AICP, Secretary of the City of Palm Desert, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2826 is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert on December 6, 2022, by the
following vote:
AYES: DE LUNA, GREENWOOD, HOLT, and PRADETTO
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
RECUSED: GREGORY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of Palm Desert, California, on December 2022.
RICHARD D. CANNONE, AICP
SECRETARY
5
Item 3B - Page 31
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
EXHIBIT "A'
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Section Mitigation Measures Responsible for Timing Impact After
Number Monitoring Mitigation
4. Biological BIO-1: Prior to construction Developer Prior to Less than
Resources and issuance of any grading grading significant
permit, the City of Palm Desert Planning permits
shall ensure compliance with Department
the CVMSHCP and its
associated Implementing
Agreement and shall ensure
that payment of the
CVMSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee
for the proposed Project is
sent to the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission
BIO-2: The project proponent Developer Prior to any Less than
shall ensure that burrowing ground significant
owl clearance survey is Planning disturbance
performed not more than 14 Department
days prior to project site
disturbance (clearing,Qualified Biologist
grubbing, grading,
construction). If any owls are
identified, the most current
protocol established by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (Burrowing Owl
Mitigation) must be followed. It
is also recommended that a
survey take place 24 hours
prior to ground disturbance as
burrowing owls may colonize
or recolonize the site within the
time between the original
survey and project activities.
6
Item 3B - Page 32
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
Section Mitigation Measures Responsible for Timing Impact After
Number Monitoring Mitigation
7. Geological GEO-1: A qualified Developer During Less than
Resources paleontologist shall be Planning grading and significant
retained and present during Department other
the first days of ground ground
disturbing activities. Once the Qualified Biologist disturbing
paleontologist has had a activities
chance to assess the
sediments and paleontological
potential of the project area,
he/she may make a
recommendation to reduce the
monitoring effort, as
appropriate, or continue with
full time monitoring. This
decision shall be
communicated along with the
rationalization to the City for
their records.
7
Item 3B - Page 33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
EXHIBIT "B'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP/EA 22-0006
PLANNING DIVISION:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Development Services Department, except as modified by the following conditions.
Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division prior to building permit issuance and may require review and approval by the
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and/or City Council.
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. 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. 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 PDMC, and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be
in force.
4. The PP shall expire if construction of the said Project shall not commence within 24
months 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.
8
Item 3B - Page 34
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
5. The PP approval is for a 394-unit apartment development, consisting of 13 three-story
buildings, one (1) two-story fitness center, one (1) single-story clubhouse, two (2) pool
areas, private outdoor recreation areas, perimeter sidewalk and landscaping, and off-
site improvements to the existing raised median on Portola Avenue, constructed in a
single-phase.
6. The approved PP shall only be modified with written City approval per PDMC Chapter
25.72.030. Any proposed changes to this PP will require an amendment to the
application, which may result in a new public hearing.
7. 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.
8. The Applicant shall execute a written acknowledgment to the Planning Division stating
acceptance of and compliance with all the Conditions of Approval of Resolution No.
2826 for PP/CUP/EA22-0006 and that the plans submitted are in compliance with the
Conditions of Approval. No modifications shall be made to said plans without written
approval from the appropriate decision-making body.
9. Prior to the 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
Building and Safety Division
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.
10. This Project is subject to payment of the City's Public Art fee. The fee will be applied
prior to a building permit issuance and shall remain in the City's public art fund.
11. Final lighting plans shall be submitted per PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape,
architectural, street, or other lighting types within the Project area.
12. All exterior lighting sources shall be fully shielded and directed downwards and is
subject to approval by the Development Services Department. Luminaries with total
lamp lumens above 16,000 lumens shall not be used. Prior to building permit issuance,
the Applicant shall submit plans for outdoor lighting as required by PDMC Section
24.16.030 and include glare ratings and color temperature for all exterior light fixtures.
9
Item 3B - Page 35
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
13. 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 and organic
waste program as required by law.
14. All trash enclosures shall be designed to match the preliminary plans showing eight-
foot-tall (8') CMU walls finished with stucco to match primary buildings and a trellis roof.
Prior to the building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a landscape
construction application for approval by the Development Services Department and
Coachella Valley Water District.
15. Final landscape and irrigation documents shall be prepared by a landscape architect
registered with the State of California and shall be submitted to the Development
Services Department and the CVWD for review and approval. All sheets shall be
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 live landscape
material. All plants shall be a minimum of five (5) gallons in size, and all trees shall be a
minimum 24-inch box in size.
A. The Applicant shall submit final landscape construction plans to the Palm Desert
Development Services Department for review and acceptance prior to submittal
to CVWD.
16. 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.
17. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Project shall record a
landscape maintenance agreement for all landscaping located within the public right-of-
way.
18. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Project landscape architect
shall submit written verification to the Planning Division that the landscaping and
irrigation have been installed per the approved landscape plan.
19. All exterior and rooftop 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.
20. 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 street-facing building elevation or area that is
10
Item 3B - Page 36
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
clearly visible from the public right-of-way. Drainage devices shall be fully integrated
into the building structure and located within the exterior walls of the structure.
21. 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.
22. Exterior building elevations showing building wall materials, roof types, exterior colors,
and appropriate vertical dimensions shall be included in the development construction
drawings.
23. All roof access ladders shall be located on the inside of the building and shall be fully
screened by rooftop parapets.
24. All parking spaces shall be clearly marked with white or yellow paint or other easily
distinguished material. Except as required by the state and the Americans with
Disability Act (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.
25. The Applicant shall provide a minimum of 788 on-site parking spaces or two (2) parking
spaces per dwelling unit. The Applicant shall provide a minimum of one (1) covered
parking stall to each dwelling unit.
26. The Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with all applicable local, state,
and federal laws and regulations.
27. 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.
28. Prior to a permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit plans for the final design of all site
fences and walls subject to review and approval by the Palm Desert Development
Services Department. The design of the walls shall be consistent with the height,
material, and design (smooth plaster finish, pilasters spaced no less than 30'-0" apart,
and cap) on the approved conceptual landscape plan.
A. The Applicant shall provide a detailed construction plan for all access gates to
staff prior to permit issuance.
B. All ground-mounted HVAC shall be screened by a minimum 42-inch low wall or
greater to screen the equipment. The design of the wall shall be consistent with
site walls and as shown on the approved preliminary landscape plans.
29. All parking areas adjacent to a public street shall be screened by a minimum 48-inch
block wall or 48-inch-tall landscape hedge.
11
Item 3B - Page 37
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
30. The Applicant shall construct the pedestrian circulation network as shown on the
approved preliminary site plan and provide pedestrian access points adjacent to all
vehicular driveways as shown on the approved preliminary site plan.
31. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the Project.
32. The Applicant shall install monument signage at the primary project entry and the
southwest corner of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The
final design shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services
Department and shall substantially conform with the preliminary exhibits shown and
conform with all applicable requirements of PDMC Chapter 25.56.
A. The Applicant shall install a prominent corner monument at the southwest corner
of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The final design
shall substantially match the detail shown on preliminary Landscape Plan L- 2-1
dated October 18, 2022, and shall include raised planters, stone wall
monumentation, and Palm tree cluster consisting of now less than a combination
of ten (10) phoenix dactylifera and Washingtonia Filifera palm trees.
B. The Applicant shall install a decorative entry at the main entry on Portola
Avenue. The final design shall substantially match the detail shown on the
preliminary Landscape Plan L-2-1 dated October 18, 2022, and shall include
interlocking concrete pavers, monument signage, stone walls, and palms lining
the entry.
33. The Applicant shall provide payment for filing fees for the Notice of Determination
within five (5) days of project approval.
34. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a parking management
plan for the underground parking area tandem spaces for staff review
35. The Applicant shall construct site amenities, including two (2) swimming pools, a fitness
building, a clubhouse building, and open space areas, including a yoga lawn, putting
green, outdoor barbeque areas, and a dog park. The dog park shall be adequately
separated from adjacent residential buildings to prevent adverse noise or odor impacts.
36. The Applicant shall provide interlocking concrete pavers at the primary project entry on
Portola Avenue and coordinate all plans to ensure consistency. The decorative pavers
shall be kept clear from the public right-of-way.
37. The secondary northern and southern access points shall be limited to egress only and
provide gates that do not obstruct the public right-of-way.
12
Item 3B - Page 38
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
38. Prior to permit issuance, the final construction drawings for the apartments and
community buildings shall return to the Architecture Review Commission to verify the
final drawings substantially conform to the preliminary plan set.
39. The Applicant shall install additional landscaping for screening purposes along Frank
Sinatra Drive, west of Portola Avenue, and east of Shepherd Lane; and the landscape
plans shall be reviewed and approved by City staff and shall be installed prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
40. Prior to the building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit an alternative exterior
color scheme for Building No. 2, as shown on the CUP Site Plan dated October 3,
2022, for review and approval by the Director of Development Services.
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:
41. The following plans, studies, and exhibits are hereby referenced: Preliminary Grading,
prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated October 3, 2022; Preliminary Utility Plan,
prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated October 2022; Preliminary Hydrology
Report, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated September 30, 2022; and
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), prepared by MSA Consulting,
Inc. dated September 30, 2022.
42. 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 with the technical
plan. The Applicant shall secure approval from all, if any, easement holders for all
grading and improvements which 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 effect. Should
such approvals or alternate actions regarding the easements not be provided and
approved by the City, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise the proposed
site configuration as may be necessary.
43. It is understood that the conceptual exhibits correctly show acceptable centerline
elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate Qs and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant
amend or revise the site plan as may be.
44. 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, as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney, for the continued and
perpetual maintenance of these streets, common areas, and on-site post construction
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
13
Item 3B - Page 39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
45. The Applicant shall pay all, appropriate signalization fee prior to the issuance of the first
building permit for the development in accordance with the City's Resolution No. 79-17
and 79-55.
46. Prior to the grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay all, appropriate drainage
fees in accordance with PDMC Section 26.49 and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 653.
47. The Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 843, Section 24.20
Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance.
48. All utility extensions within the site shall be placed underground unless otherwise
specified or allowed by the respective utility purveyor.
49. Prior to a grading permit, 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
approved Conceptual Grading Plan, 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Pad elevations, as shown on the conceptual exhibit, are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC.
53. Prior to approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed final flood
hazard/hydrology and hydraulics report for approval of the City Engineer.
54. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with
evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources
Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State
Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a
letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed.
55. The Applicant shall submit a final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report for the entire site.
The report shall be in compliance with all relevant laws, rules, and regulations
governing the City of Palm Desert.
14
Item 3B - Page 40
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
56. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed in accordance with the
City's Municipal Code Title 24, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District's standards for 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.
57. Prior to issuance of a 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.
58. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval of the Land Development
department.
59. Where grading involves import or export, the Applicant shall obtain permits, from the
Public Works Department, including import/export quantities and hauling route.
60. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and 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 the issuance of a grading permit.
61. Prior to a grading permit and 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.
62. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a signed and
notarized WQMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the City. The agreement
shall provide for the maintenance and operation of open space areas, common spaces
such as parking lots and recreational facilities, trash disposal for common areas, and
water quality BMP facilities, by either the property owner's association or the owners of
each individual lot or unit as tenants in common.
63. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and in compliance with the City of Palm Desert
Municipal Code Chapter 27. 24, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement and post
financial security guarantee for all grading work related to this project.
64. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and
approval of the City Engineer a final Geotechnical Report that includes project-specific
recommendations.
65. Upon completion of grading, the project Geotechnical Engineer shall certify to the
completion of rough grading in conformance with the approved grading plans and the
recommendations of the geotechnical report approved for this project. A licensed land
surveyor shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and
grades shown on the approved grading plans.
15
Item 3B - Page 41
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
66. 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. Prior
to 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 River Watershed
area for approval of the City Engineer.
67. The Applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan. The report shall be
in compliance with all relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing the City of Palm
Desert.
68. All post-construction BMPs shall be designed based on the City of Palm Desert's
maximum infiltration criteria of one inch/hour unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
69. 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 and landscape and irrigation improvements.
70. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit for public improvements and/or map
recordation, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement and
post financial security guarantee for the construction of all off-site/public improvements
in accordance with Chapter 27.24 of the PDMC. The form and amount of the financial
security shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall
guarantee all improvements for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance,
and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the
amount of ten percent of the surety posted for the improvements.
71. Prior to the grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit grading and
improvement plans for all private (on-site), improvements for review and approval of the
City Engineer. Signing and striping shall be part of the plans and shall include stop
signs and stop bars for vehicles exiting the development via the approved driveways.
72. Prior to the building final inspection, the Applicant is responsible for the completion of
construction of all grading and improvements for which plans are required and shall
comply with all requirements within public and private road rights-of-way.
73. Modifications, if any, to approved plans shall be submitted to the City for review as
delta revisions and will require approval of the City Engineer.
74. Prior to the grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for
Frank Sinatra Drive. The Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of
improvements for Frank Sinatra Drive per the following:
A. Prior to the issuance of a building Certificate of Occupancy for the first building of
the development, the Applicant shall construct parkway improvements along site
16
Item 3B - Page 42
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
frontage from Portola Avenue to the site boundary to the west, including
meandering sidewalk, and landscape and irrigation improvements, as approved
by the City Engineer.
B. The Applicant shall provide one (1) driveway that shall be limited to right-out
movements only. The location and design shall be per the approved conceptual
exhibits and the Palm Desert Standard Drawings and Specifications.
C. The Applicant shall construct ADA compliant depressed curbs and access ramps
at site access driveways that are in compliance with the City of Palm Desert
design standards and in accordance with the latest version of the Public Rights-
of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). Existing sidewalks and curb ramps
along the project frontage shall be inspected for ADA compliance. Applicant will
be required to update, upgrade, and restore any damaged sidewalk panels as
approved by the City Engineer.
D. Sight distance at the Project driveway shall be verified using American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines.
E. The Applicant shall provide a Class 2 bicycle lane along the project frontage. The
design shall follow Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG
ATP) Design Guidelines Section 5.3.
F. The Applicant will be required to provide appropriate bicycle lane legends per
Palm Desert Standard Detail Drawing 205, 205D, and 205E.
G. The Applicant shall show, as reference only, all existing and proposed utility
connections. Utility plans shall be processed and approved by Coachella
Valley Water District (CVWD).
75. Prior to the grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for
Portola Avenue. The Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of
improvements for Portola Avenue, including, but not limited to:
A. The Applicant shall construct parkway improvements along the site frontage from
the Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to the site boundary to the south. Including
landscape and irrigation improvements and a meandering sidewalk.
B. The Applicant shall provide two driveways; the northerly driveway shall be the
primary access point to the site and shall be restricted to right-in, right-out, and
left-in movements; the southerly driveway shall be restricted to right-out
movements only.
C. The Applicant shall construct ADA compliant depressed curbs and access ramps
at site access driveways that are in compliance with the City of Palm Desert
design standards and in accordance with the latest version of the PROWAG.
Existing sidewalks and curb ramps along the project frontage shall be inspected
for ADA compliance. Applicant will be required to update, upgrade, and restore
any damaged sidewalk panels as approved by the City Engineer.
D. Sight distance at project driveways shall be verified using AASHTO guidelines.
E. The Applicant shall provide a Class 2 bicycle lane along the project frontage.
Revisions to the existing Class 2 bicycle lane in order to accommodate the right
turn into the project main access will require review and approval of the City
Engineer. The design shall follow Coachella Valley Association of Governments
17
Item 3B - Page 43
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines and be approved
by the City Engineer.
F. The Applicant will be required to provide a southbound right-turn lane for access
to the site at the main access point. Turn lane shall be designed according to
AASHTO Green Book and Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
G. The Applicant will be required to provide appropriate bicycle lane legends per
Palm Desert Standard Detail Drawing 205, 205D, and 205E.
H. The Applicant shall construct a median opening to accommodate a left-turn lane
movement from northbound Portola Avenue onto development at the northerly
Portola Avenue driveway with a minimum of 200 feet storage length. Design shall
consider existing left-turn lane movement from southbound Portola onto Retreat
Circle N. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
I. The Applicant shall restripe the existing lane configuration to accommodate
dedicated a right-turn lane onto the development at the northerly Portola Avenue
driveway with a minimum of 200'-0" pocket length, or as approved by the City
Engineer. The design shall be per AASHTO Green Book and Caltrans Highway
Design Manual and be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
76. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide a full-scale signing and
striping improvement plan for Portola Avenue as a separate set of plans from street
improvement plans for review and approval of the City Engineer. Signing and striping
plans shall show existing improvements and modifications including, but not limited to,
bike lanes, median break(s), travel lanes, pavement markings, turning arrows, etc.
77. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide a full-scale signing and
striping improvement plan for Frank Sinatra Drive as a separate set of plans from street
improvement plans for review and approval of the City Engineer. Signing and striping
plans shall show existing improvements and modifications including, but not limited to,
bike lanes, median break(s), travel lanes, pavement markings, turning arrows, etc.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION:
78. 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.
C. California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
D. California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
E. California Electrical Code.
F. California Energy Code.
G. California Green Building Standards Code.
H. Title 24, California Code of Regulations.
I. California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
79. This project will fall under the review and compliance of Chapters 11-A and Chapter 11-
B of the 2019 California Building Code.
18
Item 3B - Page 44
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
80. The Applicant shall coordinate directly with:
Riverside County Fire Marshal's Office
CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department
Main: (760) 863-8886
77933 Las Montanas Road, Suite 201
Palm Desert, CA 92211
81. Plan approval must be obtained from the County of Riverside Department of
Environmental Health (Health Department) before constructing or altering structures or
equipment (such as fencing and decking). The Applicant shall coordinate directly with
the Health Department for the application, plans, and specifications.
82. 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 Section 8.12 of the PDMC.
83. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License before permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5.
84. 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.
85. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1351 (PDMC Section
15.28). Compliance with Ordinance 1351 regarding street address location, dimension,
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 PDMC Section 15.28
from the Building and Safety Division counter staff.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
86. 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 4,000 GPM at 20 psi for a four-hour (4)
duration. Fire hydrant location and spacing shall comply with the fire code. An
approved water supply for fire protection during construction shall be made available
prior to the arrival of combustible materials on site. Reference 2019 California Fire
Code (CFC) 507.5.1, 3312, Appendices B and C.
87. Fire Department Access: Prior to building permit issuance, a fire access site plan shall
be approved. The access roads shall be capable of sustaining 60,000 lbs. over two
axles and 75,000 lbs. over three axles in all weather conditions. Alternatives to asphalt
and concrete shall be certified by a professional engineer and approved by the Fire
19
Item 3B - Page 45
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
Code Official. Approved vehicle access, either permanent or temporary, shall be
provided during construction. CFC 503.1.1, 3310.1 and 503.2.1.
88. Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access
roads shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Ref. CFC
503.4.1.
89. Phased Construction Access: If construction is phased, each phase shall provide
approved access for fire protection prior to any construction. Ref. CFC 503.1.
90. 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.
91. 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 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 two (2) feet
six (6) inches in width by six (6) feet 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.
92. 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 the building plan review.
Ref. CFC 903.4, CFC 907.2 and NFPA 72.
93. Knox Box and Gate Access: Buildings 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 locked shall be
provided with approved 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. Ref. CFC 506.1
94. Construction Permits: Prior to the building permit issuance, building construction plans
shall be submitted to the Office of the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Construction
plans for solar photovoltaic power systems and electrical energy storage systems
ESS) shall be provided to the Office of the Fire Marshal for review and approval. (CFC
1206)
95. Fire Sprinkler System: All new commercial structures 3,000 square feet or larger shall be
protected with a fire sprinkler system. All new apartment buildings shall be protected with
fire sprinklers regardless of building size. Ref CFC 903.2. 8 and CFC 903.2 as amended
by the City of Palm Desert.
20
Item 3B - Page 46
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2826
96. 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 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
1 B 06- 07)
97. Fire Alarm and Detection System: A water flow monitoring system and/or the fire alarm
system may be required and determined at the time of the building plan review. (Ref.
CFC 903.4, CFC 907.2 and NFPA 72)
98. Knox Box and Gate Access: Buildings 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.
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).
99. Addressing: 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 fire hydrant locations within the complex. These
directories shall be a minimum of 4' x 4' in dimension and located next to roadway
access. Ref. CFC 505.1 and County of Riverside Office of the Fire Marshal Standard
07-01
END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
21
Item 3B - Page 47
Res No 2826 394 Units
Final Audit Report 2022-12-08
Created: 2022-12-08
By: Monica O'Reilly (moreilly@cityofpalmdesert.org)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAACmKMyzysWm_RSx53jgyPxPOfSXIjMG7n
Res No 2826 394 Units" History
Document created by Monica O'Reilly (moreilly@cityofpalmdesert.org)
2022-12-08 - 8:34:32 PM GMT
Document emailed to nancyjdeluna@gmail.com for signature
2022-12-08 - 8:35:13 PM GMT
Email viewed by nancyjdeluna@gmail.com
2022-12-08 - 8:35:14 PM GMT
rQ Signer nancyjdeluna@gmail.com entered name at signing as Nancy DeLuna
2022-12-08 - 8:37:44 PM GMT
C-o Document e-signed by Nancy DeLuna (nancyjdeluna@gmail.com)
Signature Date: 2022-12-08 - 8:37:46 PM GMT - Time Source: server
O Agreement completed.
2022-12-08 - 8:37:46 PM GMT
0 Adobe Acrobat Sign
Item 3B - Page 48
Page 1 of 16
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2022
PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Senior Planner
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA); AND APPROVE A PRECISE PLAN, AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 394-UNIT MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT
COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF 13 THREE-STORY BUILDINGS, ONE (1)
TWO-STORY FITNESS CENTER, ONE (1) SINGLE-STORY CLUBHOUSE,
TWO (2) POOL AREAS, AND PRIVATE OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS
ON AN 18.31-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE (APNs 620-400-030 AND
620-400-031)
RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2826:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the
project pursuant to CEQA.
3. Approving Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit/Environmental Assessment 22-0006 for the
development of a 394-unit multi-family apartment development at the southwest corner of Frank
Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The project appeared before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for architecture and
landscape review on June 28, 2022, October 11, 2022, and October 25, 2022.
On June 28, 2022, the proposed project was presented before the ARC as a non-action item. The
Commission took no formal action on the project; however, provided design feedback and comments
to be considered into the project design.
On August 23, 2022, the project appeared before the ARC; however, due to a lack of a quorum, the
item could not be heard and was rescheduled to a future date.
On September 1, 2022, City staff held a community meeting open to Palm Desert residents to
discuss the history of the General Plan adoption in 2016, and the subsequent 2017 zoning
consistency update, as it relates to the Zoning and General Plan designation of the proposed project.
Resident attendees of the meeting voiced concerns over the project’s location and height in relation
to surrounding existing communities.
Following these meetings, staff directed the applicant to address all public comments prior to the
ARC meeting scheduled on October 11, 2022. These comments included concerns over
modifications to the surrounding area, line of sight lines, traffic, and parking. The applicant provided
Item 3B - Page 49
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 2 of 16
an extensive response to these comments, which are provided in the signed letter dated October 3,
2022, attached to this staff report. Additionally, the applicant has provided renderings to illustrate
how the proposed project will fit into the existing context of the surrounding area.
On October 11, 2022, the project appeared before the ARC and was continued to a date uncertain
in a 6-0 vote with the direction that the applicant revise the plans per the following:
1. Provide a more comprehensive landscape plan for street-facing frontages and main entry on
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue.
2. Provide more elements for texture and variation to enhance the entryway, including entry gate
design and roundabout, such as decorative pavers and increased landscaping.
3. Revisit setbacks with consideration to the heights of the buildings to provide an increase to
proposed setbacks.
4. Revisit the design and explore options for enclosing street-facing stairwells.
5. Provide more articulation and design elements to enhance the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive
and Portola Avene, including signage, landscaping, layering, and height variation for more
interest to this prominent corner.
6. Consider incorporating more green space in the plan (Area No. 8), utilizing elements of
alternative options as shown by the applicant.
7. Revisit balconies, provide a design that allow balconies to integrate with the building,
incorporate variation for balcony design as opposed to uniformity and explore solid railing as
an option to mitigate concerns for visibility of stored items.
8. Revisit the scale of buildings and incorporate a hierarchy of buildings to break down massing
and avoid repetitive building masses.
9. Provide more variation and design for the exterior wall surrounding the community.
10. Revisit the architecture of garages and incorporate elements that better relate to the
architecture of residential units.
11. Ensure openings of enclosures for mechanical equipment are not visible from all vantage
points.
12. Provide variation in parapet heights to avoid repetition.
13. Break down building masses and create more interest through the use of one and two-story
elements that overlap different vertical pieces of the building.
14. Provide more architectural elements to elevator housing to avoid a utilitarian look.
At the regular meeting on October 25, 2022, the ARC recommended denial of the project architecture
to the Planning Commission in a 6-0 vote. They voiced that the project had improved, but additional
design changes were necessary. The ARC provided the applicant with the option to proceed with a
continuance and provide additional design modifications or receive a denial. The applicant requested
that the ARC deny the architecture. The ARC identified the following comments as the basis for their
recommendation for the denial of the project architecture:
1. Balconies should be better integrated into the architectural design.
2. Revisit the horizontal eyebrow element.
3. Revisit sloped parapets, including visibility of top and backside of parapet, ensure it cannot
be seen by the public from all vantage points. If the top is visible, ensure its massing is such
that it appears as three-dimensional architecture.
4. Revisit and improve massing along street frontages to break down massing, create better
hierarchy, and variation.
Item 3B - Page 50
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 3 of 16
5. Create more interest through use of one and two-story elements that overlap different vertical
sections of the building.
During the course of deliberation, individual Commissioner(s) offered commentary as follows
on the design:
• Support for incorporating more green space as shown in alternative parking option plan
provided by applicant.
• Revisit horizontal eyebrow element incorporated into the balconies, integrate element into
building versus it appearing as an extension to the building.
• Consider variation in building types and setbacks to avoid repetition and allow relief of
large masses along street frontages.
• Reconsider sloped parapets, they do not enhance architecture, high corners are not
cohesive with desert architecture, and add height that is unnecessary.
• Building walls appear flat, add more depth in between planes.
• Revisit metal panel elements and how they terminate into window.
• Walls at stairwells and balconies need to be thickened.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant, Hayes Dietrich, LLC, requests a Precise Plan (PP), Conditional Use Permit (CUP),
and an Environmental Assessment (EA) to develop a market-rate apartment community on an 18.31-
acre vacant property located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive.
The project proposes to develop 394 apartment dwelling units within 13 three-story buildings. These
buildings are comprised of 12 three-story walk-ups containing 24 dwellings per building, one (1)
three-story walk-up containing 21 dwellings, and one (1) three-story elevator building containing 109
dwellings and underground parking. Proposed on-site recreational amenities include a single-story
17,311-square-foot clubhouse building, a two-story 4,602-square-foot fitness building, two (2)
swimming pools, and open space areas. The project will provide 816 on-site parking spaces for a
total parking ratio of 2.07 spaces per dwelling unit. Additionally, the project will install necessary
frontage and off-site improvements, including median modifications and sidewalks.
The project requires the approval of three (3) entitlements, consisting of:
1. Precise Plan (PP) 22-0006: To allow the development of the apartment community, open
space amenities, parking, and related off-site improvements.
2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 22-0006: To allow the development of the apartment
community as required by the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district.
3. Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-0006: For an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration establishing the environmental setting for the project and mitigation measures
indicating the project will have no significant impacts on the environmental.
The project has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan and
includes a section summarizing full conformance and applicable requirements of the Palm Desert
Zoning Code. The proposed project is recommended for approval project subject to findings and
conditions provided in the attached resolution. Adoption of the draft resolution will approve the
project.
Item 3B - Page 51
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 4 of 16
Though the project was recommended for denial by the ARC, State legislation under the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) requires local jurisdictions approve housing developments based on
objective regulatory standards. Objective standards are defined as “standards that involve no
personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an
external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development
applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” Staff is recommending approval of
the project as it complies with the City’s objective development standards.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Background:
A. Property Description: The project site is a vacant 18.31-acre property located at the
southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The property is comprised of
two (2) contiguous vacant parcels (APNs 620-400-030 and 620-400-031). The project’s
northern boundary is delineated by Frank Sinatra Drive, which is developed to full road width
with curb, gutter, and raised center median improvements. The eastern boundary is
delineated by Portola Avenue, which is developed to full road width with curb, gutter, and
raised center median. The western boundary is delineated by combination transmission and
distribution power poles and a Southern California Edison dirt-road easement. The area to
the west of the site is an approximately 80-acre vacant property previously occupied by the
former Santa Rosa Golf Course. Residential single-family neighborhoods are located north
of the project and Desert Willow Golf Resort and the Retreat at Desert Willow Condominiums
are located to the east of the project site.
On May 11, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-66 approving a 159 single-
family unit residential project known as Catavina, which included a General Plan and zone
change from Community Commercial (PC-2) to Planned Residential 9 dwelling units per acre
(General Plan Amendment 05-03/Precise Plan 05-25/Change of Zone 05-04 and Tentative
Tract 33719) on the 18.31-acre project site. This previous entitlement expired as the project
did not move forward with construction.
B. Current Zoning & General Plan Land Use Designation:
Figure 1 – Adjacent Land Use and Designations
Existing Uses General Plan Zoning
Project Site Vacant Town Center Neighborhood
(TCN) 7-40 Dwelling Units Per
Acre
Planned Residential – 22
dwelling units per acre (PR-
22)
North Single-family
Residential
Conventional Suburban
Neighborhood (CSN)
PR-5
South Vacant TCN PR-22
East Single-family
Residential
Condominiums
Resort & Entertainment PR-8
West Vacant TCN PR-22
Item 3B - Page 52
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 5 of 16
Project Description:
The project request is a PP, CUP, and EA to develop a gated community of 394-unit market-rate
apartments on an 18.31-acre vacant site located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and
Portola Avenue. The project density is 21.51 dwelling units per acre.
Section 25.10.030 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements Table 25.10-1 Use Matrix for
Residential Districts states that multifamily dwellings require a CUP for land use compatibility.
The proposed project includes the following:
• Twelve (12) three-story walk-up residential buildings.
• One (1) three-story residential building with elevators and an underground parking garage.
• One (1) single-story 17,311-square-foot clubhouse building consisting of a movie theater,
pet spa, game room, coffee bar, and clubroom.
• One (1) two-story 4,602-square-foot fitness building.
• Two (2) outdoor swimming pools.
• Basins for on-site stormwater retention.
• 816 total on-site parking spaces with 659 spaces provided at the surface and 157 within an
underground parking garage.
• Outdoor amenities include grilling stations, fire pits, yoga lawn, putting green, bocce ball,
and community park.
Prior drafts of the project included a request for a reduced parking standard to allow for additional
open space on-site. The project request presented to Planning Commission does not include the
reduced parking request.
a) Site Plan: The northern frontage along Frank Sinatra Drive will be lined by three (3)
apartment buildings (Building No. 1 through 3), which are setback 21.8’ from the property line.
The Portola Avenue frontage is lined with seven (7) apartment buildings (Building No. 4
through 10); these buildings are designed varying setbacks ranging from a minimum of 20’
(Building No. 5) up to 46’ (Building No. 6) from the property line. Three (3) additional
residential buildings are located within the central area of the site, including the three-story
elevation building (Building No. 13). The central area also includes a single-story private
clubhouse, a two-story fitness center, two (2) swimming pools, and opens space amenity
areas.
Parking areas are generally located behind the building frontage except for two (2) surface
parking lots located at the south end of the site and parking area between Buildings 8 and 9.
Buildings are generally oriented to provide access to the units directly from nearby parking
areas. The edge condition of the site perimeter is a combination plastered block wall with
wrought iron fence with landscape screening. The walls will be four feet in height, constructed
from block, which is plastered and topped with an additional two-foot (2’) tubular fence. The
wall will be setback 10 feet from the property line with a landscape area along Portola Avenue;
this will create a setback of 23’-6” from the face of curb along Portola Avenue. The wall
setback along Frank Sinatra Drive will range from 17’-10” to 32’-0” from the face of curb along
Frank Sinatra Drive. Sidewalks and landscaping will be installed along the full project
frontages.
Item 3B - Page 53
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 6 of 16
The corner of the site (Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive) is designed to feature a
landscape area including monument signage, decorative walls, and focal landscaping
including a cluster of palm trees.
Figure 2 – Project Site Plan
The proposed building pad elevations are generally 3'-0" to 5'-0" higher than the adjacent
existing top of curb along Portola Avenue. The proposed grading design was prepared
to retain a 100-year storm event on-site.
b) Access and Circulation: There are three (3) proposed vehicular access driveways, including
two (2) along Portola Avenue and one (1) on Frank Sinatra Drive. The project proposes one
(1) right-out access (exit only) along Frank Sinatra Drive, one (1) right-out access (exit only)
along Portola Avenue, and one (1) right-in/right-out/left-in access along Portola Avenue. The
project is proposed as a private community providing gates at all access points. The
main/central vehicular entrance is located along Portola Avenue at the center of the site
(approximately 790 feet south of Frank Sinatra Drive). This primary access point will allow for
right-turn only vehicle exiting from the project site. Left-turn entry access to the project site
will be available to this access point as the project will modify the existing raised center
median to provide a left turn (in only) pocket.
The secondary egress point on Portola Avenue is located to the south of the northern
entrance with an exit only access. Exiting vehicles will be restricted to right turns. Therefore,
entry access from Portola Avenue is not permitted for this driveway.
The egress point on Frank Sinatra Drive will be gated as well and will only allow exit only from
the project. Exiting vehicles will be restricted to right turns. Therefore, entry access from Frank
Sinatra Drive is not permitted for this driveway
The internal private drive aisle is proposed with a minimum of 30 feet in width. The site plan
provides for internal pedestrian connections throughout the site with continuous paved
Item 3B - Page 54
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 7 of 16
pathways between apartment buildings and the on-site amenities. Pedestrian access points
to the public sidewalk occur near the main vehicle points of the site via sidewalk connections.
Trash enclosures are also located throughout the project within the parking areas behind the
buildings to minimize visibility from public frontages and traffic conflicts.
Off-site improvements for the project will include:
• Construction of public sidewalks along the project street frontages, including accessible
crosswalks across each project driveway.
• Modifying the raised center median on Portola Avenue to accommodate a 200’
northbound left-turn lane at the primary access.
• Providing a southbound 200’ right-turn lane for access at the central driveway.
c) Parking: The project provides 816 parking spaces throughout the community, including 157
below surface parking spaces. Approximately 396 parking spaces will be covered. The design
for the carports consists of metal as shown on the architecture plans. 157 spaces are provided
within an underground parking area located at Building No. 13.
The underground parking portion located under Building 13 includes 27 tandem parking
spaces. To manage these tandem spaces, the proposed project includes and a parking
management plan. The remaining parking 263 spaces are uncovered spaces, which will be
partially shaded by parking lot shade trees.
d) Architecture: The architecture for the residential buildings provides a contemporary style
characterized by overhangs and trellises, balconies and patios, horizontal, and varying wall
planes, large window groupings, and a desert color palette with natural stone wall facades.
The architecture of the 12 walk-up buildings includes light stucco masses at the corners that
are defined by lighter colors and recessed windows. The darker stucco masses and chimney
elements vary the roof line and screen all rooftop mechanical equipment. The one (1) central
multifamily building also uses lighter colors at the corners; however, implements an overhang
along the top level and incorporates deeper window recesses along the bottom floors. The
center sections of the building have a similar character to the perimeter walk-up buildings
using slender stone walls at the balconies and patios.
The architecture of the amenity buildings is proposed with a contemporary desert theme with
long overhangs and butterfly roof elements that compliments the proposed residential
buildings.
Figure 3 – Project Architecture – Building 13
(See on next page)
Item 3B - Page 55
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 8 of 16
e) Buildings and Screening: Figure 4 below provides a summary of building floor area.
Figure 4 – Building Summary
Building Type
Number of
Buildings
Number of
Stories
Gross Floor
Area Roof Line Height
Walk-up 12 3 380,472 33 to 37 feet
Multi-family 1 3 191,928
33 to 36 feet (tower
elements at 40 feet
Fitness Center 1 2 4,602 33 feet
Clubhouse 1 1 17,311 18 to 27 feet
Total Floor Area 594,602 square-feet
Below is a breakdown of the unit type and bedroom count for the 394 units:
Unit Type Unit Count Percentage of Total Units Total Bedrooms
Studio/Alcove 35 9% 35
One Bedroom 176 45% 176
Two Bedroom 171 43% 342
Three Bedroom 12 3% 36
Total 394 100% 589
Item 3B - Page 56
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 9 of 16
The project proposes roof-mounted HVAC units, which are screened by a continuous
parapet. Utility rooms for additional screening are provided at the ends of the ground floor
of each residential building.
f) Landscaping: The proposed landscaping includes perimeter roadway frontages,
retention areas, and common areas. Shade trees are located on the perimeter and
internal drive aisles 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 the use of trees throughout the project. The perimeter of the site,
open space amenities, areas between the buildings, and retention basin are lined with
48-inch box Desert Museum trees and 36-inch box Acacia Aneura trees and Prosopis
Phoenix trees, and 24-inch Acacia Salincina trees.
Also proposed throughout the project are a mix of low water usage five-gallon (5) shrubs,
including Agave Americana, Agave Weberi, Dasylirion Wheeleri, Acacia Redolens,
Muhlenbergia Capillaris, Leucophyllum Candidum, Saint Elmo’s Fire, Bougainvillea, and
several other shrubs and accent plants as shown on the landscape plan.
The primary entrance off Portola Avenue includes a row of Date Palms and decorative
ground-color material palette to provide an enhanced, decorative project entrance. See
Figure 5 on next page.
Figure 5 – Overall Landscape Plan
Analysis:
The project site is designated Town Center Neighborhood (TCN) by the Palm Desert General Plan
Land Use Element (see page 30 of the General Plan). The TCN designation is intended to provide
moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development that features a variety of housing choices,
walkable streets, and mixed uses with an allowable density range of seven (7) to 40 dwelling units
Item 3B - Page 57
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 10 of 16
per acre.
The project site is zoned Planned Residential-22 dwelling units per acre (PR-22) and subject to the
development standards established by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) for the Planned
Residential (PR) Zone. The PR zoning district allows the development of multifamily, subject to the
approval of a PP and CUP by the Planning Commission under Chapter 25.72 of the PDMC.
Land Use Compatibility
The project is consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan goals and policies of the Land Use
Element. The project has a density of 21.51 Dwelling Units Per Acre, therefore, falls within the
allowable density range established for the TCN land use designation. Additionally, the project
conforms with the intended built form and character established for the TCN designation as the
proposed development of the site is a three-story multi-family apartment development. The proposed
project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, as demonstrated below:
Land Use Element
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.
Land Use 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. The existing homes
in the area are a for sale product and the proposed project supports the expansion of housing by
providing a for-rent development within the City. The project promotes multifamily residential that is
in keeping with the mix of higher and lower densities in the area including, single-story residential
developments.
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.
Use Policy No. 3.21 (Infill Neighborhoods), in existing developed areas, the City encourages
development that repairs connectivity, adds destinations, and encourages complete neighborhoods.
The project is designed with internal pedestrian access and provides common area recreational
amenities available to all onsite residents (tenants). The proposed project includes private streets,
pathways, and open spaces intended to allow residents (tenants) to enjoy the project’s amenities,
while being able to connect to public pathways, thereby creating a pedestrian and family-oriented
atmosphere. The project is designed with internal pedestrian access and provides common area
recreational amenities available to all residents.
Development Standards
The proposed development complies with all setbacks (front, rear, and side yards), building height,
lot coverage, and parking requirements of the Planned Residential (PR) zone. The PR-22
development standards are analyzed for conformance below:
Item 3B - Page 58
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 11 of 16
Figure 6 – Project Conformance Summary
STANDARD PR-22 ZONE PROJECT CONFORMS
Height 40’-0” 33’ to 37’ (tower 40’) Yes
Front Setback - 20’ to 46’ Yes
Rear Setback - 24’ to 60’ Yes
Street Side Setback - 22’ Yes
Parking 788 Onsite Spaces 816 Onsite Spaces Yes
Density 22 units per acre 21.5 units per acre Yes
Lot Coverage Maximum 50% 24% Yes
Open Space Minimum 20% 29% Yes
Density
The PR zone allows a minimum of four (4) du/ac and a max of 40 du/ac pursuant to PDMC, Table
25.10-3. The zone allows for a maximum density of 22 du/ac, and the project is requesting twenty-
one-and-one-half (21.5) du/ac, which is within the density of the PR zone allowance.
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 three-story buildings vary in roof heights between 33 feet and 37 feet
with tower elements at 40 feet, which is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Parking
Section 25.46.040 Parking Requirements of the PDMC establishes that multifamily dwellings require
a minimum of two (2) parking spaces per unit. The 394-unit project would require a minimum of 788
on-site parking spaces per this standard. The project is proposing 816 parking spaces, which meets
the minimum parking requirement. A minimum of one (1) space per dwelling unit must be provided
as covered parking for a minimum of 394 covered spaces. The project is proposing up to 396 covered
parking stalls with garages or carports; therefore, satisfies the code requirement for covered parking.
Minimum Project Perimeter Setback
Section 25.10.050(6)(c) of the PDMC requires a minimum setback of 20’ from all property lines
adjacent to existing or proposed public streets. The project is adjacent to two existing public streets,
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue; therefore, subject to this requirement. Along the two (2)
street frontages, there is a minimum building setback of 20’-0” from the property line.
Perimeter Walls
Section 25.40.080 of the PDMC regulates height and materials of walls and fences within residential
zones. The project proposes wrought iron and decorative block walls, with landscaping around the
project perimeter. The materials are consistent with allowable materials adjacent to public right-of-
way. The walls are setback a minimum of 23’-6” from the adjacent face of curb and comply with
applicable setback requirements.
Item 3B - Page 59
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 12 of 16
California Housing Accountability Act
The California Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, establishes
limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing
development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute
to meeting housing need. Both affordable and market-rate development are protected by the
components of the HAA. Objective, as used in the Act, means involving no personal or subjective
judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and
the public official.
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan,
zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the
time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the
project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency
shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings
supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions
exist:
• The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public
health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the
project be developed at a lower density.
• There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact, other than
the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the
condition that it be developed at a lower density. Feasible means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based
on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they
existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65589.5 (a)(3) it is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently.
An example of a condition that does not constitute a specific adverse impact, as indicated by the
Department of Housing and Community Development, would be criteria that requires a project to
conform with “neighborhood character.” Such a standard is not quantifiable; therefore, would not
meet the conditions set forth under the HAA.
Public Input:
Public Notification
Public noticing was conducted for the December 6, 2022, Planning Commission meeting per the
requirements of PDMC Section 25.60.060 and Government Code Sections 65090 to 65094. A public
hearing notice was published a minimum of 10 days before the hearing date on Friday, November
25, 2022, in The Desert Sun newspaper. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 1,000
feet of the project site for a total of 270+ public hearing notices mailed.
Item 3B - Page 60
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 13 of 16
PDMC Section 25.60.160 requires all development projects on sites greater than five (5) acres to
prepare Community Engagement Plans to present and engage in a public outreach meeting early in
the entitlement process of new projects and address concerns of the public prior to an action of the
approving body. The proposal is located on a site that is 18.31-acres; therefore, a community
engagement plan was prepared per PDMC. The applicant hosted a Zoom meeting with residents on
April 25, 2022, prior to submitting the project to the City for review. An in-person meeting was held
on August 3, 2022, at the Retreat Clubhouse at 2900 Retreat Drive in Palm Desert.
At the April 25, 2022, Zoom meeting, there were approximately 15 residents in attendance from the
Retreat at Desert Willow. The applicant presented the project and many of the residents voiced
concerns regarding density (too many units) and building heights (three-story). Many of the residents
stated that they were unaware that the property allowed up to 22 units per acre and building heights
up to 40 feet. The residents requested for the applicant to provide line of sight studies and look for
ways to preserve mountain views.
After the April 25, 2022, Zoom meeting, staff and the applicant discussed the residents’ comments.
The applicant agreed to relocate one of the three story buildings along Portola Avenue to the rear
and replace it with an open space amenity area. Having the open space amenity area along Portola
Avenue preserves some views for the residents at the Retreat at Desert Willow.
At the August 3, 2022, community in-person meeting, there were 17 residents in attendance and
approximately six (6) additional via Zoom. Most of the residents were from the Retreat at Desert
Willow and a few from the single-family neighborhood to the north along Pele Place. The applicant
presented the project, including line of sight studies, the new site plan, and updated architecture.
The residents voiced the same concerns with density (too many units) and building heights (three-
story). The residents and applicant discussed rents and the residents expressed a positive response
that it was a market-rate project.
The meeting concluded with a few residents stating that the City needs to reexamine the density and
building heights for the surrounding area because its taking away from the Palm Desert “resort
atmosphere.”
Neighborhood Changes
Applicants have voiced concern that a project at a density of 22 units per acre is a significant increase
for the area in comparison to existing development in the vicinity which consists of single-story single-
family residential, two-story condominiums, mobile home parks, and open space (golf courses). The
City adopted the current general plan land use designation, Town Center Neighborhood (TCN) in
November 2016. The TCN zoning designation allows residential at densities of 7 to 40 dwelling units
per acre. In June 2017, the Palm Desert City Council approved Ordinance Nos. 1324 and 1325
approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Change of Zone 17-105 for a Citywide zoning update for
zoning consistency with the 2016 General Plan. The proposal is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and Zone changes.
Detrimental Noise
Nearby residents are concerned that the project will generate detrimental noise impacts due to the
additional parking areas, increase in street traffic, and noise generated by future use of the apartment
development. The project is proposed as a residential apartment development and not anticipated
to generate noise in excess of that which is typically expected within a residential zone. The project
Item 3B - Page 61
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 14 of 16
request does not include allowances for regular noise generating uses such as outdoor
entertainment or heavy equipment. All future users, residents, and maintenance activities of the
apartment community will be subject to Chapter 9.24 of the PDMC, which regulates and prohibit
excessive, disturbing, and/or offensive noise impacts to surrounding properties.
Palm Desert General Plan Chapter 7, Figure 7.1 – Future Noise Contours found on page 104
identifies that ambient road noise from Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue are the primary noise
sources within the vicinity of the project site. Nearby residential developments to the east and north
are fully separated from the project site by existing public right-of-way, and perimeter block walls.
Existing perimeter walls for the neighboring residential communities provide sound attenuation to
reduce impacts caused by ambient roadway noise generated by vehicles on Portola Avenue and
Frank Sinatra Drive. Construction activities for the project are also expected to create potential noise
impacts; however, are regulated by the PDMC which restrict hours of construction pursuant to
Section 9.24.070.
Traffic
Residents also voiced concerns over additional traffic generated by the project and impact on Frank
Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The project applicant has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project, which includes a traffic analysis including level of service (LOS) analysis
and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The analysis found that no significant impacts would occur as a
result of the project. The traffic contemplated for the project is within the allowable range envisioned
by the Palm Desert General Plan. Off-site improvements recommended include modification to the
existing raised median on northbound Portola Avenue to allow for access to the site. The central
access point on Portola Avenue is the only allowed vehicle access point. All vehicle exits are
restricted to right-hand turns only.
Light Pollution
Residents have voiced concerns that the project will generate excess light pollution due to parking
lot lighting. Exterior light sources for the project will include lighting poles within the parking lot,
pedestrian level lighting bollards, building mounted lighting, and lighting located on the underside of
carports. All exterior lighting will be designed in accordance with the Chapter 24.16 of the PDMC,
which provides standards intended to minimize night-time light pollution by requiring all outdoor
lighting to be fully shielded and directed downward to control for glare and light trespass. The
proposed project includes a preliminary lighting plan showing fixtures that are fully shielded and a
photometric lighting plan demonstrating there will be no light-trespass on adjacent properties.
Loss of Views
At the community engagement meetings and in letters addressed to the City, residents have voiced
concern over the loss of mountain views that may occur as a result of the project development. The
site is presently vacant and views across the site of the San Jacinto Mountains located west of the
project site, and Santa Rosa Mountains to south of the project site are unobstructed from adjacent
properties and roadways. Residents are concerned that the placement of new three-story apartment
buildings will impair views of the mountains from adjacent communities located north and east of the
project site.
Item 3B - Page 62
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 15 of 16
As proposed, the project complies with City zoning requirements and setback requirements which
allow for three story buildings. The City has not codified a viewshed ordinance for preservation of
views, and there are no scenic designations in proximity to the project site. In response to applicant
concerns, the applicant has provided a response to resident concerns in the attached letter dated
October 3, 2022. The proposed project has been designed to include separations between three
story buildings and providing openings along Portola Avenue to allow views of the mountains from
roadways. The site design incorporates context sensitivity in its setback, orientation, and placement
of structures, particularly in relation to the presence of residential uses in the area.
Property Perimeter
Residents have voiced concerns about the edge condition of the project along public street
frontages. At the time of the meeting the proposed project included a four-foot-tall (4’) block wall with
two-foot (2) tubular steel fence atop. Residents voiced concern that this design will allow for noise
impacts from the project and headlights within the surface parking lots to shine directly at the existing
residential community located to the east.
The project will incorporate a mix of wrought iron tubular steel fencing and decorative combination
wall with tubular steel fencing. The combination wall will consist of four feet (4”) of plastered concrete
masonry wall with a two-foot (2’) tubular steel fence atop for a total height of six feet (6’). The four-
foot-tall (4”) wall is a sufficient height to block views of surface parking areas where headlights may
shine out from the project site. Tubular steel fencing will typically occur at landscaped areas and/or
is conditioned to incorporate hedging landscape planting to provide additional screening of vehicles
and headlights.
Privacy
Residents of Pele Place located north of the project site have voiced concerns over the presence of
three-story balconies facing north as these balconies provide a potential line of sight into the rear
yards of residences on Pele Place. In response to these comments, the applicant has agreed to work
with the Pele Place homeowners’ association (HOA) to provide landscaping along outside the rear
wall of the seven homes on the south side of Pele Place.
Environmental Assessment/Environment Review:
A draft Initial Study was prepared for the project pursuant to the CEQA and determined that the
project would not generate any significant impacts with mitigation measures and as such, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared. The MND will include a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program (MMRP).
Under the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the
environmental impacts of the project. In July 2022, the City circulated notice of the project to local
tribes per the list established by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and in
accordance with Assembly Bill 52. The MND provides for Mitigation Measures with respect to Tribal
Resources and will require the presence of an approved tribal monitor during ground-disturbing
activities. The City circulated the Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) in The Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, on July 21, 2022, for the public
review and comment period of no less than 20 days. The comment period closed on August 11,
2022, with no comments received.
Item 3B - Page 63
City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
Page 16 of 16
In the City’s role as the lead agency under CEQA, the staff finds that the MND and Initial Study dated
July 2022 contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with
the project. The documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. All environmental impacts of the project
are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation
measures outlined in the MND, Initial Study, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The project requires mitigation measures for biological impacts and tribal monitoring for potential
cultural resources. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the MND for the
purposes of CEQA.
Findings of Approval:
Findings can be made in support of the project under the City’s Municipal Code. Findings in support of
this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2826 attached to this staff report.
REVIEWED BY:
Department Director: Richard D. Cannone, AICP
Deputy Director: Rosie Lua
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2826
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Notification Radius
4. Architecture Review Notice of Action and Minutes
5. Project Initial Study / MND
6. Project Plans
7. Preliminary Hydrology Plan
8. Preliminary WQMP
9. Public Comment letters
10. Applicant Response to Comment Letter Dated October 3, 2022
Item 3B - Page 64
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES
Tuesday, December 6, 6:00 p.m.
2022 Regular Meeting
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, this meeting was conducted by teleconference, and there
was in-person public access to the meeting location.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair DeLuna on
Tuesday, December 6, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners John Greenwood, Ron Gregory, Vice-Chair Joseph Pradetto, and
Chair Nancy DeLuna.
Commissioner Lindsay Holt arrived at 6:01 p.m.
Absent: None.
Staff
Present: Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney, Richard D. Cannone, AICP, Director of
Development Services; Rosie Lua, Deputy Director of Development Services; Nick
Melloni, Senior Planner; and Monica O'Reilly, Executive Administrative Assistant.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
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.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-
city/committees-and-commissions/commission-information.
City of Palm Desert Page 1
Item 3B - Page 65
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2022
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of November 15, 2022.
MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PRADETTO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GREENWOOD,
CARRIED 5- 0, to approve the Planning Commission Regular Meeting minutes of
November 15, 2022.
CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER:
None.
6. ACTION CALENDAR
None.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); AND APPROVAL OF A
PRECISE PLAN TO DEVELOP AN APPROXIMATELY 52,528-SQUARE-FOOT SELF-
STORAGE FACILITY ON A 1.87-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF DINAH SHORE DRIVE AND DICK KELLY DRIVE (APNs 694- 240-009,
010, AND 021)
Senior Planner Melloni presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Chair DeLuna opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, the applicant, thanked City staff and stated they accept all the
Conditions of Approvals as presented. He and his team were available to answer any
questions.
Mr. Josef Jonathan, a Palm Desert resident and business owner, voiced support for the
project.
There being no one desiring to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PRADETTO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOLT,
CARRIED 5-0, approving Planning Commission Resolution No. 2825 to:
1. Adopt a Notice of Exemption for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption in accordance with
CEQA.
2. Approve Precise Plan (PP)/Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-0005 for the
development of a 52,528-square-foot self-storage facility, including on-site and off-site
improvements on a 1.87-acre site located at the northwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive
and Dick Kelly Drive.
City of Palm Desert Page 2
Item 3B - Page 66
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2022
B. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT
TO CEQA; AND APPROVE A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A 394-UNIT MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY CONSISTING
OF 13 THREE-STORY(3) BUILDINGS, ONE(1)TWO-STORY FITNESS CENTER, ONE
1) SINGLE-STORY CLUBHOUSE,TWO(2) POOL AREAS, AND PRIVATE OUTDOOR
RECREATION AREAS ON AN 18.31-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE (APNs 620-400-030
AND 620-400-031)
Commissioner Gregory announced he had a conflict of interest due to his employer and
recused himself. He left the meeting at 6:21 p.m.
Senior Planner Melloni narrated a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Deputy Director of Development Services Lua mentioned comments from the public were
attached to the staff report. Staff emailed comments to the Commission received after the
agenda was posted and kept for the record. Ms. Lua addressed an inquiry regarding
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Chair DeLuna opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Cody Dietrich, the applicant, introduced his team and presented a PowerPoint
presentation about the project.
Ms. Christine Pecard, the project architect, continued with the presentation, focusing on
the project's architecture.
The applicant and City staff responded to Commission inquiries.
Mr. Mark Shabashov, a Palm Desert resident, voiced his opposition to the project.
Mr. Don Mess, a Palm Desert resident, voiced his opposition to the project.
Ms. Kathleen Kendrick, a Palm Desert resident, voiced her opposition to the project and
asked why the comments and questions period was short.
Ms. Cam Cameron, a Palm Desert resident, voiced her opposition to the project.
Mr. Al Stanger, a Palm Desert resident, voiced his concern with zoning in the area that
would allow high-density development and asked when the City changed the zoning.
Mr. Dave Sams, a Palm Desert resident, voiced his opposition to the project.
Ms. Edith Taylor, a Palm Desert resident, voiced her opposition to the project.
Mr. Jeff Cameron, a Palm Desert resident, voiced his opposition to the project.
Mr. Jeremy Cowley, a Palm Desert resident, voiced his opposition to the project.
Ms. Pamela Hoekstra, a Palm Desert resident, voiced her opposition to the project.
City of Palm Desert Page 3
Item 3B - Page 67
Planning Commission Minutes December 6 2022
There being no others desiring to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Deputy Director Lua interjected and asked Chair DeLuna to reopen the Public Hearing to
allow City staff and the applicant to respond to questions.
Chair DeLuna reopened the Public Hearing.
Senior Planner Melloni responded to concerns/questions made by the public.
Mr. Dietrich also responded to concerns/questions.
City Attorney Hargreaves briefed the Planning Commission on the Housing Accountability
Act (HAA) and responded to questions.
At this point, there was discussion regarding land use and density, with staff responding
to additional questions.
The applicant responded to questions from the Commission.
There being no others desiring to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
After comments made by Commissioner Pradetto, he moved for approval.
Commissioner Holt interjected, stating that she would want to incorporate a Condition of
Approval.
Commissioner Pradetto withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Greenwood added that he would also want to add a Condition of Approval
to the landscape plans.
City staff proposed wording for the Condition of Approvals, noting that the Planning
Commission could revise it.
Chair DeLuna reopened the Public Hearing.
The applicant accepted the proposed additional Condition of Approvals and responded to
questions about building color changes.
There being no other comments, the Public Hearing was closed.
Following Commissioner comments, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENWOOD,
SECOND BY VICE-CHAIR PRADETTO, CARRIED 4-0 (GREGORY RECUSE),
approving Planning Commission Resolution No. 2826 to:
1. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Program for the project pursuant to CEQA.
2. Approving PP/Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/EA 22-0006 for the development of a
394-unit multifamily apartment development at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra
Drive and Portola Avenue.
City of Palm Desert Page 4
Item 3B - Page 68
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2022
3. The applicant shall install additional landscaping for screening purposes along
Frank Sinatra Drive, west of Portola Avenue, and east of Shepherd Lane; and the
landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by City staff and shall be installed
prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
4. Prior to the building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit an alternative
exterior color scheme for Building No. 2, as shown on the CUP Site Plan dated
October 3, 2022, for review and approval by the Director of Development Services.
8. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & COMMENTS
A. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
None.
B. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
1. Cultural Arts Committee
None.
2. Parks and Recreation Commission
Senior Planner Melloni stated that there were no reportable actions, and City staff
provided updates on existing parks.
C. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
None.
D. CITY STAFF
Deputy Director Lua mentioned that there are no agenda items for the Planning
Commission meeting of December 20.
E. ATTENDANCE REPORT
The attendance report was provided with the agenda materials. The Commission took no
action on this matter.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Monica O'Reilly, Executive Admin' ative Assistant
Recording Secretary
City of Palm Desert Page 5
Item 3B - Page 69
Planning Commission Minutes December 6 2022
ATTEST:
Richard D. Cannone, AICP, Director of Development Services
Secretary
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 01/17/2023
City of Palm Desert Page 6
Item 3B - Page 70
Item 3B - Page 71
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Don & Lisa Mess - 804 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date: August 19, 2022
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex
that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community. The
proposed project location is the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the
project as proposed are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units
on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed
zoning for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an
area which is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the
entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we
relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high density housing project would significantly
increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671
parking spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking
spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395
apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78
visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of
the complex being able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going
to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across
from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car
headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased street traffic.
Can exiting the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the
number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high.
The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact
the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as
well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that
they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful
mountain views will be almost complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings
are massive and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will
lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that
Item 3B - Page 72
when The Retreat project was approved and construction began, the project property was
zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think
that the city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to
develop the property in question, but to do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to the
area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building
will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor
would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential complex.
However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior
staircases are unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be
able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as
proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the
“upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to surround
the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance
between the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will
install a meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the street from
The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a
detrimental effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional
land use management practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density
apartment complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our
property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the
proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment
complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction
of a massive high density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Item 3B - Page 73
From:CouncilMeeting Comments
To:alan.vanderpool@yahoo.com
Cc:Alan Vanderpool; Kevin Swartz; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: Opposition to HD Project
Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 11:43:12 AM
Good morning Mr. Vanderpool,
Thank you for your e-mail. It has been shared with Planning department staff and will be distributed
to the City Council in advance of Thursday's City Council meeting. It will also be included as part of
the public record.
Kind regards,
Niamh M. Ortega
Deputy City Clerk
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487
nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: alan.vanderpool@yahoo.com <alan.vanderpool@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:46 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Alan Vanderpool <pattivanderpool@yahoo.com>
Subject: Opposition to HD Project
We strongly oppose the high density, 3-story, apartment complex proposed to be built
at Frank Sinatra and Portola for the following reasons:
1. Obstruction of our beautiful mountain views because of the 3 story profile of the structures and
mass of the complex.
2. Extremely high density housing inconsistent with the existing residential communities in the area.
3. Marked negative impact on traffic (650 proposed parking spaces) and increase in noise impacting
the quiet community we live in today. The entrance to the property of 300+ units is directly across
from our residences.
3. Invasion of privacy. Looking into residences and down into yards.
4. Boxy 3 story buildings inconsistent with the existing luxury housing surrounding the area. Desert
Willow Golf Course and resort-style communities already exist in that intersection. Those
developments are single and two story.
Item 3B - Page 74
5. Too close to the street, not adequately set back from the street. No walls for sound mitigation.
6. Such a large apartment complex would create a transient community of perhaps 600 plus people
surrounded by an otherwise stable population.
Please deny this project as presently proposed for all of the serious concerns identified.
Respectfully,
Alan and Patti VANDERPOOL
501 Retreat Circle Palm Desert 92260
Item 3B - Page 75
From:CouncilMeeting Comments
To:Sue Hammans
Cc:Kevin Swartz; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: No 394 Walk-up apartments on Portola/Frank Sinatra by HD
Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 11:45:33 AM
Good morning Mr. and Mrs. Hammans,
Thank you for your e-mail. It has been shared with Planning department staff and will be distributed to the City
Council in advance of Thursday's City Council meeting. It will also be included as part of the public record.
Kind regards,
Niamh M. Ortega
Deputy City Clerk
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487
nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Hammans <suehammans@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 4:10 PM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: No 394 Walk-up apartments on Portola/Frank Sinatra by HD
Members of the City Council of Palm Desert:
Steve and Sue Hammans
1801 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert
The Retreat at Desert Willow
We love Palm Desert, if we wanted to live in Indio, Cathedral City or Desert Hot Springs we would have built a
home there.
We chose Palm Desert because of the beautiful Golf Courses, views of the mountains, and the feel of this amazing
location.
We have enough manufactured homes and now this project doesn’t fit our upscale Palm Desert.
The traffic all hours of the day and night will be ridiculous.
No vested interest renters with three story boxes over looking our properties is not a good idea, these proposed
apartments will not fit our environment.
Come on Palm Desert, we don’t need this. Let’s have our one story or two story homes in this area. We want
growth, but, not at this cost to the neighborhood!
Steve and Sue Hammans
Sent from my iPad
Item 3B - Page 76
From:CouncilMeeting Comments
To:Cynthia Rankowitz
Cc:Marshall Rankowitz; Kevin Swartz; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: HD Portola – Frank Sinatra project.
Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 11:46:28 AM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
Good morning Mr. and Mrs. Rankowitz,
Thank you for your e-mail. It has been shared with Planning department staff and will be distributed
to the City Council in advance of Thursday's City Council meeting. It will also be included as part of
the public record.
Kind regards,
Niamh M. Ortega
Deputy City Clerk
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487
nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Cynthia Rankowitz <ccilwik@snet.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 4:12 PM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Marshall Rankowitz <mmrankowitz@gmail.com>
Subject: HD Portola – Frank Sinatra project.
Mimecast Attachment Protection was unable to create safe copies of your attachments.
My husband, Marshall, & I are residents of The Retreat. We are strongly opposed to the dense, three
story apartment complex being planned for the vacant lot on the corner of Frank Sinatra and
Portola. We are in complete agreement with the two attached letters which you received from our
neighbors, Don & Lisa Mess and Jeff & Cam Cameron. We hope that the council will take into
consideration the negative impact this proposed project will have on the residents of The
Retreat and our neighbors on living on Frank Sinatra.
Marshall & Cynthia Rankowitz
102 Retreat Circle
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPad
Item 3B - Page 77
From:Doug Hoekstra
To:Kevin Swartz
Subject:For Consideration
Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 8:30:12 PM
To: Kevin Swartz
Thank you for taking time in the meetings to explain the proposed Hayes Dietrich development along Portola in
Palm Desert. We have three main concerns regarding the development:
· The obstruction of the beautiful Mountain View’s
· The landscaping and esthetics of the development along Portola and Frank Sinatra
· The impact on traffic flow and safety
We had been looking to buy a second home in Palm Desert or the surrounding area for several years to get away
from the long winters in Minnesota. One of the comments we consistently made during our search was that we
appreciated that buildings in the area were mostly 1-2 stories, and that the area really preserved the wonderful
views. In our visit last year we found the Retreat which we thought was perfect. We made an offer on one of the
units which had wonderful views of the mountains. Unfortunately, we were not successful in acquiring this
property. In January of this year, we acquired a unit in the Retreat which has views to the southeast, south,
southwest and west. The views were described as “stunning” by our realtor, which they really are. To say that these
views to the west will potentially be impacted by a three story apartment complex is extremely disappointing is an
understatement. If we owned a unit along Portola, which we almost did and many of our neighbors do, it would be
more disappointing. We understand the need for development, but would ask the Developer and City to reconsider
making this a 3 story complex, as it will obstruct views of many and completely change the feel of the
neighborhood.
Regarding the landscape, we ask that the Developer and City ensure that the landscape and sidewalks is
commensurate with the look around the Retreat and Desert Willow Country Club. This is such a beautiful area,
developments should be held to the same standard. Less concrete and more trees, plants and flowers. Also, moving
the Power Lines along Portola underground would go a long way in making the street look like other main streets in
the area and also a current modern city.
Regarding traffic, I am sure with that many units the impact from the traffic will be significant. Anything to reduce
the impact of the traffic and the resulting noise, whether it is adding more trees or plants, increasing the wall height,
I hope is being considered. Also, given that an additional 1,000 people will be added to the immediate area, I hope
the city is addressing potential safety concerns for the surrounding areas including the Retreat. The fact that a
portion of the residents at the new development could potentially be shorter rentals is of concern, especially since
we are not at our property year around.
Again thanks for holding the meetings and for listening to our feedback and specific concerns.
Item 3B - Page 78
If you would like to discuss further, please let me know.
Doug Hoekstra
1504 Retreat Circle
763-257-2131
Item 3B - Page 79
From:CouncilMeeting Comments
To:Melissa Sass
Cc:Kevin Swartz; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: Opposition to Proposed Complex at Frank Sinatra and Portola
Date:Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:41:13 AM
Good morning Mr. and Mrs. Sass,
Thank you for your e-mail. It has been shared with Planning department staff and will be distributed
to the City Council in advance of Thursday's City Council meeting. It will also be included as part of
the public record.
Kind regards,
Niamh M. Ortega
Deputy City Clerk
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487
nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Melissa Sass <nguyenm22@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:02 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Complex at Frank Sinatra and Portola
From: Aaron and Melissa Sass
2204 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert
The Retreat at Desert Willow
Dear Council and Commission members,
We are homeowners at the Retreat at Desert Willow, the quiet, gated community on Portola,
near Frank Sinatra. Our community is a wonderful balance of neighbors and natural space.
Our complex is located right across the street from the proposed high density apartment
complex at Frank Sinatra and Portola. As homeowners who will be directly impacted by the
proposed complex, we would like to state our opposition.
While we understand an apartment complex may be within the PR-22 Zoning of the land, we
are concerned about the increase in traffic and residents without the infrastructure to support
the addition. Typically, PR-22 zoning is nearer to commercial areas and/or public
transportation, which are not features of the identified land. Instead, this location is near PR-5
and PR-8 communities. We also have not seen additional traffic, parking, and noise studies
that support the addition of this proposed high density housing. What would be the impacts to
water, sewage, and streets in the area?
In addition, the proposed three-story buildings do not integrate into the surrounding areas of
one and two story homes, but instead create a disjointed flow to the community. We also have
concerns that the increase in crowds and changing landscape of the area will negatively impact
property values in homes that we have already significantly invested in.
Item 3B - Page 80
While we are not wholly opposed to new construction the area, our concerns specifically lie
with the high density housing as currently proposed. We appreciate your time and
consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Aaron and Melissa Sass
Item 3B - Page 81
From:CouncilMeeting Comments
To:Art Sanchez
Cc:Kevin Swartz; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: HD Portola - Frank Sinatra Apartment Project
Date:Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:42:04 AM
Good morning Mr. Sanchez,
Thank you for your e-mail. It has been shared with Planning department staff and will be distributed
to the City Council in advance of Thursday's City Council meeting. It will also be included as part of
the public record.
Kind regards,
Niamh M. Ortega
Deputy City Clerk
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487
nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Art Sanchez <artsanchez@live.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:15 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Art Sanchez <artsanchez@live.com>
Subject: HD Portola - Frank Sinatra Apartment Project
Good Morning,
We are residents at “The Retreat at Desert Willow”
We strongly oppose the high density, 3-story, apartment complex proposed to be
built at Frank Sinatra and Portola for the following reasons:
1. The beautiful mountain views to the west, will be obstructed, due to a 3-story profile
of the structures and mass of the complex. Our development sits at 2 stories.
2. Extremely high-density housing inconsistent with the existing residential
communities in the area.
3. With a negative impact on traffic, noise level will increase impacting the
surrounding quiet communities. The entrance is to the property of 300+ units is
directly across from our residences where it may be better suited along Frank Sinatra.
3. As the complex piers down into neighboring yards, there will be an Invasion of
privacy or the lack of to exciting residences.
Item 3B - Page 82
4. Devalues the luxury surrounding communities, with obstruction of views, and lack
of serenity. These boxy 3 story buildings are inconsistent in height with the existing
luxury housing surrounding the area. Desert Willow Golf Course and resort-style
communities already exist in that intersection.
5. Noise levels from this 300+ complex may also impact the serenity of the Desert
Willow golf course, the players edge.
6. The set back from the street is not adequate, and the project is too congested.
Appears to be a lack of or no walls for sound mitigation in the project.
7. Such a large apartment complex would create a transient community of perhaps
600 plus people surrounded by an otherwise stable population, and require much
more city resources, and water usage in an environment where we need to reduce
usages.
Please deny this project in its current form as presented, perhaps a lessor number of
units, or perhaps 2 stories, could be proposed for all of the serious concerns
identified.
Respectfully,
Arthur Sanchez
1903 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Item 3B - Page 83
From:CouncilMeeting Comments
To:Monica Bury
Cc:Kevin Swartz; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex by developer Hayes Dietrich at the southwest corner of Portola and
Frank Sinatra
Date:Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:42:57 AM
Good morning Ms. Bury and Ms. Angster,
Thank you for your e-mail. It has been shared with Planning department staff and will be distributed
to the City Council in advance of Thursday's City Council meeting. It will also be included as part of
the public record.
Kind regards,
Niamh M. Ortega
Deputy City Clerk
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487
nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Monica Bury <mbury76@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:54 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex by developer Hayes Dietrich at the southwest corner
of Portola and Frank Sinatra
We have enjoyed quiet and tranquil living at the Retreat at Desert Willow for 4 years. We love our
home, our community, the views and the tranquility. We would very much like to continue to live
here and keep the peace and tranquility. However this proposed project would destroy what we
bought into.
Below is an excerpt from a letter to the City Council from our neighbors, Don and Lisa Mess, 804
Retreat Cir.. They have clearly laid out all the problems and concerns for our community. Please give
you thoughtful consideration to all the points listed below. All the residents of The Retreat have
these same concerns.
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395 unit apartment
complex that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community.
The proposed project location is the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections
to the project as proposed are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units
on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning
for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which
is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the entire dynamic of
Item 3B - Page 84
the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we
relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high density housing project would significantly
increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671 parking
spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking spaces for this
type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395 apartments and 671
parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78 visitor parking spaces
allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of the complex being able to
have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going to park? Overflow parking
would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across
from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car
headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Can
exiting the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number of U-
turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high. The increased risk
for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact the
Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as well as
local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that
they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful mountain
views will be almost complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive
and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will lose. We paid a
lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that when The Retreat
project was approved and construction began, the project property was zoned R-8. There was no
way for prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that the city would make such
an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is
shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to develop the property in question, but to
do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be
subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building will obliterate their south facing views. In addition
to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential complex.
However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases
are unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge
$4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as proposed tends to
make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only
building with elevator service is located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to surround
the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance between
Item 3B - Page 85
the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a
meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been shown that
installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the street from The
Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental
effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use
management practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment complex
next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the
proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment
complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction
of a massive high density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Monica Bury and Gwendolyn Angster
1102 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Item 3B - Page 86
From:Gary Sheneman
To:Kevin Swartz
Subject:Opposed to Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex
Date:Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:42:31 AM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
HD Project - Objection.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Gary and Mary Sheneman
As opposed to being redundant I have attached a letter sent to you by Don & Lisa Mess concerning their objections
to the proposed apartment complex across from the The Retreat. Their points for objecting to the project are spot on
and Mary and I both agree with what they have outlined 100%.
When we bought our condo at The Retreat we fully realized that at some point the lot across the street at Portola and
Frank Sinatra would be developed at some point. The expectation was that a value added community (high end
homes) would be built befitting the Palm Desert neighborhood that it is in. No one would have imagined a 3 story
395 unit apartment complex which will have a negative impact on views, traffic, noise, property values and etc.
We are all for growth in Palm Desert that adds value to the neighborhood but not growth that detracts as this project
will. I would appreciate the Council refusing the request to build this high-density apartment complex.
Thanks
Gary & Mary Sheneman
203 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, CA.
Item 3B - Page 87
From:Cam Cameron
To:Kevin Swartz
Subject:Fwd: Opposition to the proposed project at Portola and Frank Sinatra
Date:Sunday, September 4, 2022 12:20:06 PM
Kevin:
We sent this to City Council over the weekend.
Cam Cameron
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cam Cameron <camrn2@yahoo.com>
Date: September 4, 2022 at 11:26:13 PDT
To: CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org
Subject: Opposition to the proposed project at Portola and Frank Sinatra
To:
Members of the City Council of Palm Desert of Palm Springs
From:
Jeffrey and Cameron Cameron
2601 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert Ca 92260
Council:
This is our second letter to you regarding this project. After attending the
Planning Department Community Meeting, hosted to discuss the proposed
development of the 394 unit high density apartment complex at Portola and
Frank Sinatra, on September 1st at 5:30, we feel it necessary to emphasis a few
more important points:
1. Our complex, The Retreat at Desert Willow, is directly across the street on
Portola. When our project was approved for development, the property in
question was zoned for R-8 . It was changed to R-22 after our construction was
approved and began in 2017. As new buyers, none of us were made aware of this
change. (Our builder may not have known of this density change across the
street.)
2. All original buyers at The Retreat were charged SUBSTANTIAL premium
fees for our views ranging from $40,000 to over $150,000 added to our purchase
price. These were for golf course and mountain and pool views. These added
prices became part of our purchase price. These higher prices added to the
property tax base and translates to higher fees collected by the City of Palm
Desert. Essentially, what we paid extra for, and continue to pay taxes on, will
now be eliminated for many of our homeowners. All of us with west mountain
views stand to have those wiped out by this three story project. Views we paid
for!!!
Item 3B - Page 88
3. I (Cam) am a retired registered nurse. It is mentioned that all but one of the
buildings will have exterior stairs and no elevators. These are proposed 3 story
buildings. How does this meet current ADA needs? Families with small children,
people with disabilities, and the elderly will have a very difficult, if not
impossible, time negotiating stairs to the upper floors.
4. According to the elevations that we have seen, there will be balconies on the
back side of the buildings facing both Portola and Frank Sinatra Dr. Obviously
those balconies will be open to view by the passing motoring public and more
importantly by the residents of the surrounding properties. No doubt those
balconies and whatever is on them will be unsightly, not to mention a platform
for looking down upon the adjacent neighborhoods.
We strongly urge you to deny this project as proposed and reconsider the zoning
on the small parcel of land. We argue that this particular property is not
appropriate for R-22 designation. In particular, apartment dwelling. Such a large
apartment complex will undoubtedly attract a more transient population by its
very nature situated in an otherwise stable owner-residential community.
Condominiums in our complex have recently sold for over a million dollars with
the mountain views that will be blocked by that construction.
We welcome a scaled down single family home project or at most a two story less
dense project on that property. Ideally, a park would be perfect!
We invite you to visit us any time to see for yourself the impact this proposed
project will have on our community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Cam and Jeff Cameron
Item 3B - Page 89
From:Kevin Wiseman
To:Kevin Swartz
Cc:Lucy Sanchez
Subject:Hayes Dietrich Development on Frank Sinatra & Portola
Date:Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:25:09 PM
Dear Mr. Swartz,
As a resident of Pele Place, a community that will be affected by Hayes Dietrich's plan to
develop 394 apartments at the Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola, I wanted
to share with you a concern that I have regarding the development.
Depending upon how long you have been at the planning department, you may recall the
history of our own Pele Place development. I only learned of it when a plumber recently
serviced our house. Pele Place began development around 2007, but was stalled midway
through construction due to the financial crash of 2008 and the developers' financial
insolvency. The homes were not finalized for a period of time (I'm unsure how long). I learned
from our plumber that during the time when construction was stalled, the homes on Pele Place
became occupied by squatters, and it was quite the hassle to get them removed when
construction was restarted. Our plumber was part of the team that renovated the homes to
repair damage done by the squatters and finish the construction. At the time, I don't believe
there were many finished homes in the Shepherd Lane development, but perhaps older
residents of the area might know more.
Given the media reports of troubled waters in the financial markets ahead, I am concerned that
Hayes Dietrich's development may suffer a similar fate if the City has not verified that the
developer is on extremely solid financial footing. If the development stalls midway through
construction and squatters become an issue, our neighborhood is the closest to the
development and could suffer from the squatters activities in the area. As a parent of a young
child (knowing that there are several young children living in the Pele Place development), I
would like to protect him from the potential for bad experiences.
You'll probably hear from my neighbors about how the development will ruin our southern
views and infringe on our privacy (as a third floor apartment will have an easy time seeing
over our short fences), and will reduce property values and impact traffic adversely. I share
those sentiments, but thought I should focus on a topic you might hear less about. I would like
to have assurances from the City that if development does proceed, it will not stall or stop, and
that we won't have to worry about squatters occupying unfinished apartments in our area.
Thank you,
Kevin Wiseman
Pele Place Development Resident
Palm Springs Airport Commissioner representing Palm Desert
(760) 832-2194
Item 3B - Page 90
From:Edith Taylor
To:Kevin Swartz
Subject:Project on Portola and Frank Sinatra
Date:Saturday, September 17, 2022 2:56:29 PM
To: Kevin Swartz, Senior Planner for the City of Palm Desert
Architect Review Committee (ARC)
I am sending you this email for presentation to the ARC and for your information. It sets forth
my reasons why the proposed development plans by Hayes Dietrich, LLC for the 18-acre lot at
the Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue should not be approved as in
its present state.
THE DESIGN INFRINGES ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY *(Please see
California statute below. California law guarantees a right to privacy in its constitution.)
The architect has drafted a plan that includes three -3 story buildings (building type C) that
are on the Frank Sinatra side of their site plan. These buildings are the tallest in the plan that
have views into the back yards of others. The project will have 394 residents. We were also
told that the entrance to the apartments (type C) will be facing Frank Sinatra. I don’t know if
the plan includes balconies. I also note that there are other residential building types but they
apparently aren't built where tenants can look into someone’s backyard.
The Pele Development has 14 residences. Seven (7) of those homes have their back yards on
Frank Sinatra. Six (6) of the seven (7) homes have swimming pools and the seventh home
(ours) is in negotiation with contractors to install a swimming pool this year. Although it isn’t
a large community it is very diverse. The Frank Sinatra side of those seven homes include
families with young children, elderly residents and working residents. We all use our
backyards.
My sister, Gwenette Parker, Gerald Taylor, my husband, and I purchased a residence in the
Pele Pace Development in 2009. Our back yard is on Frank Sinatra. A brick wall gives us the
privacy that any home owner would expect and require. The present architect plans from
Hayes Dietrich, LLC not only obstructs our views of the mountain to the south but gives
unobstructed views from their apartment(s) location right into all of the Pele Place- on the
south- back yards. That means the tenants will not only have a beautiful view of the mountains
to the north but they will have full views into our back yards. There are no trees or bushes high
enough to stop those tenants from looking into our backyards and there is nothing to stop any
potential tenant from infringing on our rights to privacy.
Each household in the Pele Place Development has a different reason to want to protect the
privacy they presently have in their back yards. There are families on the south side of Pele
Place with very young children. Each of these families have swimming pools. Wouldn’t they
also want and deserve to have privacy as their children play and swim in their back yard?
Some neighbors work and return home and simply want to relax in their back yards in private.
We are all in our eighties in our household and have used the residence for our own specific
benefits. My husband has been diagnosed with a muscular disorder. He benefits from walking
and exercising in private in our back yard. My sister has a skin disorder that requires constant
treatment. She uses the back yard to disrobe in privacy near her bedroom where she can
receive the benefits from the sun. She’ll only be able to do this in the privacy of our back yard.
Item 3B - Page 91
We are finally getting a pool and I’ll be able to use the jacuzzi in the backyard as part of the
therapy for my bad knees. We don’t relish the thought that residents from the new
development across the street will be able to watch us as we go through our routine of trying
to live a quiet life in private.
POTENTIAL NUISANCE
I would also suggest that the ability of the tenants to look at will into our backyards may
constitute a nuisance."Nuisance Law and Legal Definition. In legal terminology, a nuisance
is a substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, which may be intentional,
negligent or ultrahazardous in origin, and must be a result of defendant's activity."
MISCELLANEOUS REASONS
Although the residents on the North side of the Pele Development will still have their
northern mountain views they will feel the impact of the traffic that will result from this
proposed devlopment. Shortly after we purchased the real property in 2010 a lady was
driving north on Portola and ended up in the landscape right behind our backyard on
Frank Sinatra. Luckily we had the brick wall to protect us. The Pele Place Development
was able to claim damages for the landscape she destroyed and the palm tree that she
hit. I am reminded that 1) that the accident and damage to Pele Place will only increase
with the new proposed development and 2) our brick wall won’t protect us from the
glaring views that the tenants will have into our back yards.
Pele Place was in foreclosure in 2009 when we purchased our residence from the bank.
The high interest rates we have today make me also ask that the Palm Desert department
that deals with financing and new construction will make sure that we’re not left next
door to an abandoned project. Cody Dietrich, the developer, says that this is his first
solo project but that he has worked with other developers.
Conclusion
I believe in progress but I also believe that new developers to an area have an obligation to be
considerate of their new neighbors. The Pele Place Development has been completely
overlooked and ignored. Adjustments were made for the residents at the Retreat at Desert
Willow located on Portola Avenue. Some changes were made to the project. I believe the
buildings were changed or moved or lowered to preserve their mountain views to the west. No
other residents except the Pele Place Development residents have been dealt a “double
whammy”. First, Hayes Dietrich, LLC wants to build three 3- story apartment buildings
constructed in a manner that takes away our southern mountain views and second, Hayes
Dietrich, LLC wants to build their three 3-story buildings recklessly giving their tenants open
views into the Pele Place Development residents lives and private backyards.
A simple solution would be to relocate the apartments to another area on the site that wouldn’t
invade the privacy of others and to lower the number of stories in the apartment buildings
from three to two. No where else on Frank Sinatra are there three story apartment building. At
the very least the apartments should be constructed where no tenant(s) are given the ability to
have views into the back yards of any resident especially Pele Place Development residents.
Thanks for your consideration.
Edith Taylor
Item 3B - Page 92
Pele Place Development Resident and President of the Pele Place Development HOA
323-298-7223 (h) 323-496-1884 (cell)
*"All people are by nature free and
independent and have inalienable rights. Among
these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness,
and privacy”
Cal. Const. Art. I, § 1.
three-3
Item 3B - Page 93
From:Richard Winkle
To:Kevin Swartz
Subject:Proposed Buildings @ Frank Sinatra & Portola
Date:Monday, September 19, 2022 12:25:51 PM
This is confirm my concerns regarding the project noted above. This project will completely block my current view
of the mountains and the idea of someone looking directly into my back yard is completely unacceptable. I am
currently involved in installing a pool and entertainment area at a cost of about $130,000.00. This project will make
this improvement a total waste of money as well depreciating the value of my home with or without the pool. This
should not be allowed to happen.
Respectfully,
Richard D. Winkle
Item 3B - Page 94
From:Pamela Hoekstra
To:Planning E-mail
Subject:Regarding Hayes Deitrich Development
Date:Tuesday, October 11, 2022 8:29:51 AM
To the City Council and Planning Commission of Palm Desert;
Just as others that live in and visit Palm Desert, I am in awe of the natural beauty of the
area. I am always grateful for the majestic views of the surrounding mountains. This along
with the beautiful landscape provided both by nature and the housing communities,
neighborhoods and golf courses make Palm Desert an extremely special and unique place.
These are things that can not be bought or replaced and are enjoyed by all.
As a resident of The Retreat, I am proud to live in a community that encompasses and
enhances the natural landscape environment. This is evident not only in our community but
in those immediately around us; including Desert Willow, The Westin and the residential
areas. This too, is part of what makes Palm Desert a very special and unique place.
The proposed development by Deitrich Hanes on Frank Sinatra and Portola, not only does
not fit in with the natural environment created by the residents and communities of this
immediate area in Palm Desert. But, it will directly take away from and have a negative
impact to the natural beauty. By allowing 3 story buildings with mainly concrete, blacktop
along with the unattractiveness buildings, this area of Palm Desert will be altered forever.
This should not be taken lightly as once the natural beauty and charm is replaced with
blocks of concrete it will not in our lifetime be returned.
The new development is proposed as ‘luxury homes’. This development is 3 story
apartments that will block mountain views from not only the immediate residents but all
who enjoy the community and views. As you drive around Palm Desert, the place you find
developments of this type are in industrial areas, business parks and retail areas. Those are
the areas where this type of development would fit in. It does not make sense to allow this
development to be placed in the middle of a beautiful residential area.
Please take this decision very seriously and the negative impact it will have on Palm Desert
forever.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Pam Hoekstra
1504 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert
Item 3B - Page 95
Item 3B - Page 96
From:shab@linklinkline.com
To:Planning E-mail
Subject:Hates Dietrich proposal pp/cup22-0006@
Date:Tuesday, October 11, 2022 10:02:25 AM
I am against this highly density complex. My main reasons are the traffic and parking issues from such a
concentrated development. The traffic study is old and needs to be re-done. Portola and Frank Sinatra are some of
the busiest streets in Palm Desert with cars traveling well above the posted speed limit. I also have concern with
crime from rental apartments. Residents moving in and out at a much higher frequency than home owners. With
rentals comes a lower level of commitment to care for the property where the rental is. I am not looking forward to
furniture, bicycles, dead plants etc sitting out on these rental patios! The amount of single family homes being built
on Portola is resulting in more traffic and unsafe conditions. This project has too many units in such a small piece of
property and no parking variance should be given to the developer. 2 spots per unit minimum. If the developer can’t
accommodate this, than build a smaller development. We do not want cars from the apartments to be parked in our
neighborhoods. I always notice that 3rd floor units on Portola, look into the living rooms of homes on the North side
of Portola. This is not right.
Have a nice day sincerely Mark Shabashov
Item 3B - Page 97
From:Mark Colbourne
To:Erika Castellano
Subject:Objections to the Hayes Dietrich condo project
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 8:59:34 AM
Hi,
As a resident of Palm Desert, I want to voice my objections to the 3-story, 395
unit apartment complex that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across
the street from our community. The proposed project location is the southwest
corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. My objections to the project as proposed
are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert
Willow, consists of 112 units on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units
on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that property allows 22
units per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which is
primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will
change the entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet
enjoyment that we relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high
density housing project would significantly increase the amount of street traffic
and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671 parking spaces planned
for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking spaces for
this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex
with 395 apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud
project. There are only 78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That
equates to less than 2% of the population of the complex being able to have
visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going to
park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank
Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost
directly across from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face
Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight towardtheir
homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Can exiting the project on
Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number of U-
turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very
high. The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly
increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor
parking will impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It
is important to our local wildlife as well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer
Item 3B - Page 98
has stated that they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the
obstruction of our beautiful mountain views will be almost complete
obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive and
a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we
will lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The
Retreat. Also note that when The Retreat project was approved and
construction began, the project property was zoned R-8. There was no way for
prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that the city
would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for
growth and the need to develop the property in question, but to do so in such a
drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra
will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building will obliterate their
south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor would
have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale
residential complex. However, as designed all the building will have exterior
staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are unattractive and in no way
say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge
$4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design
as proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share
units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is
located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat
fencing to surround the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and
car headlights. The actual distance between the street and fence line is quite
narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a meandering
sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across
the street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes
bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect on area home values.
The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use management
practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment
complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our
property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is
not right for the proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an
area more conducive to apartment complexes. We moved to this quiet
neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction of a massive high
density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Item 3B - Page 99
Kind Regards,
Mark Colbourne
2103 Retreat Circle
Item 3B - Page 100
From:Kenny LaForge
To:Erika Castellano
Subject:Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:20:34 AM
To: Erika Castellano-City of Palm Desert
From: Kenny and Debbie LaForge
202 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert
Date: November 2, 2022
To begin I reference a letter from Don and Lisa Mess which thoroughly address the many issues they point out with
the design of the project. I agree with this letter completely and emphatically.
We certainly agree with and support good developments. However this project does not fit the neighborhood. I
would hope for a project with much less density and one that does not ruin the views of the surrounding area. The
fact that the Retreat community is only 2 stories above grade would set a small precedence of what is fitting for the
area. Changing the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is an insult to every Retreat homeowner who bought in an area
expecting a peaceful and quiet residential area. I would hope the City would do everything they could to protect and
enhance a premium residential area such as the Retreat. Boxy 3 story buildings housing 395 units is the opposite of
premium. We also understand that parking is always a premium in the desert. The number of parking spaces per
unit makes little sense. That concept alone is insuring instant problems as residents and guests fight for parking
spaces. We all have seen high rise apartments and never once have we thought that how good they look. If built;
these apartments will forever be an eyesore to Palm Desert
Simply said this apartment complex is a bad idea for the area. It would be great area for single family homes or low
level condominiums which the area currently has. Clearly money is the driving force for such high density. We are
asking the City to rise above that concept and do what’s right for the residents in the area. I do appreciate the efforts
of the ARC Commissioners and am hopeful the Planning Commission will step up and do what’s right.
Sent from my iPad
Item 3B - Page 101
From:Jeremy Cowley
To:Erika Castellano
Subject:Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:15:59 AM
Good Morning,
Please read each agenda item under consideration. We oppose the Hayes-Dietrich Proposed
Apartment Complex Project. Thank you in advance for your time.
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Jeremy and Alyssa Cowley 1702 Retreat Cr.
Date: November 2, 2022
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex that developer
Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community. The proposed project location is the
southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the project as proposed are based on numerous
reasons:
-[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]--> Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of
112 units on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that
property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which is primarily 12 units per
acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment
that we relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high density housing project would significantly increase the
amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671 parking spaces planned for the project.
That is a variance from the current required parking spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per
unit. A complex with 395 apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only
78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of the complex being
able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going to park? Overflow parking would spill
over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost
directly across from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car headlights
being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Can exiting the project on Portola
will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf
Academy will be very high. The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will
impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as well as local
sky/star watchers.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has
stated that they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful mountain views
will be almost complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive and a supposed “view
corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we
purchased at The Retreat. Also note that when The Retreat project was approved and construction began, the project
property was zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that the
Item 3B - Page 102
city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is
shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to develop the property in question, but to do so in such a
drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A
3 story building will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor would have
views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential
complex. However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are
unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-
bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will
start to share units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of the
complex.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to
surround the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance between the street
and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a meandering sidewalk around the
property. However, the drawings that we have been shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
-[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the
street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect
on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use management practices.
Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a
negative impact on our property values.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the proposed location
and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment complexes. We moved to this
quiet neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction of a massive high density housing project
directly across the street will be a detriment to our community.
Jeremy Cowley
33562 Yucaipa Blvd. Ste. 4-406
Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
CELL 951-313-0808
EFAX 909-583-0006
jeremy@premiumutilitycontractor.com
Website: premiumutilitycontractor.com
This email, including any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient(s) to
which it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager immediately; you may
not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message to anyone. Please note that any views or opinions presented in
this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. Finally, the recipient
should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Premium Utility Contractor Corp. and Affetti
Exclusivi LLC accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
Item 3B - Page 103
Item 3B - Page 104
From:John Newburger
To:Erika Castellano
Subject:Proposed project at Portola and Frank Sinatra
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:23:52 AM
Good morning,
My name is John Newburger. I live at 1301 Retreat Circle, across the street from the proposed 394-unit
construction. I just want to echo the concerns that have already been expressed at a couple of meetings that I have
attended virtually.
I was realistic when I purchased my unit, realizing that the empty area across the street would not be empty forever,
that something would eventually be built there. I expected, and even welcomed, a certain level of construction and
activity in the area. But I did not anticipate 394 units and 600+ cars on such a small parcel of land. I fear that this
will have a huge impact, especially in terms of traffic. The number of cars entering and exiting on an already busy
street (Portola), along with those making u-turns on another one (Country Club), added to those already making u-
turns on another (Frank Sinatra) will be problematic to say the least.
The increased traffic is my major concern. There are other impacts, such as those on views, lights, noise, and
aesthetics which have already been expressed by others. Thanks so much for reading this.
John Newburger
P.s. I get skeptical when a developer uses the phrase “view corridor.”
Sent from my iPad
Item 3B - Page 105
From:Glenn Luther
To:Erika Castellano
Subject:Objections to Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:19:32 AM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
HD Project - GL-Objection.docx
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when
opening files.
We strongly object to the subject development. Changing the zoning of the adjacent property to R-
22 is not in keeping with the principle of “good faith” that the citizens of any community expect
from their planning commission. Where is the consideration for the impact on us?
Glenn and Leslee Luther
2303 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
Item 3B - Page 106
From:Phyllis Stephenson
To:Erika Castellano
Subject:Re: Palm Desert City Council plans to built on Portola
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 11:03:14 AM
Hello Palm Desert City Council,
As you are aware there are plans to build a 3 story, 394 apartment complex unit for the 18
acres directly across the street from The Retreat on Portola and Frank Sinatra.
As residents of the Retreat we have major concerns about how such a large complex will
impact living in our community.
This project will bring additional traffic of at least 1,400 more cars to navigate safely getting
on and off of Portola. Additional noise and traffic.
The boxy looking complex with exterior staircase and open balconies will obstruct our current
mountain views, which is why many of us purchased here.
This style of development does not fit well into this community.
We want the City Council to know that as taxpayers, and voters, we strongly oppose to this
type of structure being built across from the Retreat.
We appreciate your careful reconsideration of this project from this location. Thanking you In
Advance.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs Thomas & Phyllis Stephenson
1404 Retreat Cir,
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Item 3B - Page 107
From:Rosie Lua
To:fixface@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Nick Melloni; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Apartment Complex proposal at corner of Portola & Sinatra
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 12:42:12 PM
Jamison & Ashley Pawley,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please contact the project planner
Nick Melloni at nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org.
Thank you,
Rosie Lua
Planning Manager
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6480
rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: JP <fixface@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 12:05 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Ashley Pawley <ashley7877@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apartment Complex proposal at corner of Portola & Sinatra
For what our opinion is worth as long time residents of beautiful Palm Desert, we write to
express our strong disapproval of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Frank
Sinatra and Portola. From the inherent dramatically increased noise and
traffic/congestion sure to follow, we also foresee our current lovely views of the
mountains being obstructed (one of the main reasons we purchased our home in that
location). Additionally, our beautiful Palm Desert dark night skies will most certainly be
dramatically reduced due to the 'light pollution' sure to follow, not to mention a
significant decrease in our homes desirability, and thus value, due to such a blight on our
cherished private-residence community at The Resort. We'd be happy to discuss this
further, should you have any questions or desire any clarifications. We thank you for
your kind consideration.
~Jamison & Ashley Pawley
Item 3B - Page 108
Jamison J Pawley, DMD, MSD, FWFO
Orthodontist & Dentofacial Orthopedist
175 N Pennsylvania Ave; Glendora, CA 91741
w w w . p a w l e y o r t h o . c o m
Item 3B - Page 109
From:Nick Melloni
To:slblank7374@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: New Development on Sinatra and Portola
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:52:05 PM
Hello Steve and Janet,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: New Development on Sinatra and Portola
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Steven Blank <slblank7374@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 2:07 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: don@donmess-cpa.com
Subject: New Development on Sinatra and Portola
Item 3B - Page 110
Hello,
We are the owners of 2503 Retreat Circle, a condo in the Retreat Complex in Palm
Desert. As owners of this unit, we would like to object to this apartment complex that is
being proposed to be built across the street from the Retreat. The proposed location is
the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. There are several reasons we object
to this proposed apartment complex.
First, the 395 unit complex is far too many units on only 18 acres. The Retreat complex
only consists of 112 units on 15 acres. Huge difference. We do not know of another
complex comparable to this in our area. It will look out of place.
Second, a higher density apartment complex will significantly change the noise volume
in our quiet community. We cannot begin to imagine the additional car noise/traffic we
will encounter. The potential for car, bike and pedestrian accidents will increase
dramatically. Where will all these new people park?
Third, the height and architectural design of the project also does not compare to the
neighborhood. The exposed stairways and balconies are really not consistent with the
vibe here in Palm Desert. The three story design will ruin sight lines of the desert
valley forever. Not just for retreat owners but for the multiple single story
developments around.. Two storiies should be the maximum height.
We do not consider ourselves against all development. Without it we would not have
been able to live in our great community. We just want to be able to pull in and out of
our neighborhood safely and to be proud of the community we call home.
Very best regards,
Steve and Janet
Item 3B - Page 111
From:Nick Melloni
To:Deanie Harrison
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:56:28 PM
Hello Roger and Deanie,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Deanie Harrison <vancitydeanie@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed project at Frank Sinatra &
Portola in Palm Desert.
As residents we feel that the increased traffic, light and loss of views will negatively
impact our community.
Our feeling is that the project is too dense and not designed to fit in with the other
homes in the community and surrounding area and not designed as a single family
residence development but rather will be priced at a rate that will force more people
into each residence that it is ideally designed for.
We feel the approval of this development will not only impact our enjoyment of our
quiet desert home but will negatively impact our property values.
As such we wish to formally register our opposition to this project moving forward
as proposed.
Item 3B - Page 112
Thank you
Roger & Deanie Harrison
304 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA
Item 3B - Page 113
From:Nick Melloni
To:Sharon Fiorito
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes- Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:56:36 PM
Hello Sharon and Tim,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Sharon Fiorito <sharonfiorito@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Fwd: Hayes- Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sharon Fiorito <sharonfiorito@hotmail.com>
Date: November 6, 2022 at 11:02:02 AM PST
To: ecastellan@cityofpalmdesert.org
Subject: Hayes- Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
To:The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Tim and Sharon Fiorito- 903 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert,CA 92260
Date: November 6, 2023
Re: Hayes - Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
We are residents of Palm Desert, specifically The Retreat at Desert Willow and we are
objecting to the 3 story, 395 unit apartment complex, that is proposed across from our
Item 3B - Page 114
community on the SW corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra, for the following reasons.
# Density…The proposed complex will have too many units …too dense ….the zoning
change from R-8 to R-22 is illogical and was unforeseen by The Retreat
homebuyers.
Permitting the installation of a 3 story, 395 unit, high density apartment complex next
to low density neighborhoods will have a general negative impact on our community.
# The Design…touted as a high end and upscale residential complex doesn’t jive with
all the 3 story buildings outside staircases… And No Elevators…. Really ? Upscale?
Not!
#. Additional Light Pollution….caused by the mere density of the project.
The proposed vertical slat fencing will do nothing to hide headlights of the the
more than 600 parking spaces…600 spaces! That is lot of everything …
people …cars…noise…and lights!
# Additional Noise Pollution
Self Evident…add that many people to that small an area…there will be a significant
Increase in general noise, street noise and traffic noise….there would be a
dramatic change in our quiet, desert, and peaceful lifestyle.
# Lower Property Values: It is a safe assumption, that this high density development
will lower our property values as well….that is not far fetched.
#. Last but certainly not Least …..Our Majestic Mountain View’s! The 3 story
buildings on the proposed project will destroy them!
Which brings us back to the drastic zoning change from R-8 to R-22!
We accept there is a need for growth and development but please, let it be reasonable.
So, I guess by now you understand, we have objections to the proposed 395 unit,
high density project. These reasons are all valid and reasonable, and have merit.
Please DO NOT ALLOW this development to move forward in this location.
Thank you,
Tim and Sharon Fiorito
Sent from my
Item 3B - Page 115
From:Nick Melloni
To:Richard Engebretson
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: An issue with the proposed apartment complex on Portola
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:56:40 PM
Hello Richard,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Richard Engebretson <richard.engebretson@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 1:57 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: An issue with the proposed apartment complex on Portola
Good morning,
A representative of our condo community--The Retreat at Desert Willow--has
already sent you a comprehensive email with many concerns about the
proposed apartment development at Portola and Frank Sinatra. In general, he
points out that it is too dense, too tall, and out of character for this area of
Palm Desert. Also, it will greatly affect the residents across the street where
we live.
I want to add another observation. As residents of The Retreat at Desert
Willow for almost four years, I would say that as my wife and I exit the Retreat
in our car, more than ninety percent of the time it is to go west on Frank
Sinatra to Rancho Mirage and other valley cities, or north up to Gerald Ford Dr.
or Dinah Shore Dr. For us, this is simply a left turn on Frank Sinatra or
continuing north on Portola. But for the residents of this new apartment
development, most of the times that they want to go west or north they will
have to make a U-turn, either on Portola itself or at the intersection of Frank
Sinatra and Portola. This could turn into a dangerous traffic situation.
Again, the density of this rental property is not in keeping with the Palm Desert
that I moved to in 2019.
Item 3B - Page 116
Richard Engebretson
1804 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert
Item 3B - Page 117
From:Nick Melloni
To:jbutzbach@comcast.net
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:56:59 PM
Hello James & Kathleen,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: JAMES BUTZBACH <jbutzbach@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date: November 3, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Desert City Council
Item 3B - Page 118
From: James & Kathleen Butzbach - 801 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA
92260
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As residents of Palm Desert, my wife and I want to voice our objections to the 3-story,
395 unit apartment complex that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build
across the street from our community. The proposed project location is the southwest
corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the project as proposed are
based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow,
consists of 112 units on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18
acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that property allows 22 units
per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which is primarily
12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the entire
dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet
enjoyment that we relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high density
housing project would significantly increase the amount of street traffic and
noise that we currently encounter. There are 671 parking spaces planned for
the project. That is a variance from the current required parking spaces for this
type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395
apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project.
There are only 78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates
to less than 2% of the population of the complex being able to have visitors at
any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going to park? Overflow
parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost
directly across from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face
Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight toward their
homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Can exiting the project on
Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number of U-turns
made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high. The
increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor
parking will impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is
important to our local wildlife as well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer
Item 3B - Page 119
has stated that they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the
obstruction of our beautiful mountain views will be almost complete obliteration.
The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive and a supposed “view
corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will lose. We paid a lot
of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that
when The Retreat project was approved and construction began, the project
property was zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at The
Retreat to even begin to think that the city would make such an aggressive
change in zoning for this area. For the city to change the zoning from R-8 to R-
22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to develop the
property in question, but to do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to
the area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view
loss. A 3 story building will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the
fact that residents on the 3rd floor would have views directly into homes along
Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale
residential complex. However, as designed all the building will have exterior
staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are unattractive and in no way say
“upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge $4,000/month
for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as proposed
tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the
“upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of
the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat
fencing to surround the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car
headlights. The actual distance between the street and fence line is quite
narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a meandering sidewalk
around the property. However, the drawings that we have been shown that
installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across
the street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering
Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect on area home values. The City of
Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use management practices.
Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment complex next to
low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not
right for the proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more
conducive to apartment complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific
reasons, and sadly, the introduction of a massive high density housing project directly
across the street will be a detriment to our community.
Item 3B - Page 120
From:Nick Melloni
To:lisalosh@icloud.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes-Dietrich Apmt Complex
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:05 PM
Hello Lisa,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 4:27 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: Hayes-Dietrich Apmt Complex
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Losh <lisalosh@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 4:27 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Hayes-Dietrich Apmt Complex
Item 3B - Page 121
As a resident of The Retreat - I would like to voice my objection to the current plan for the Hayes-
Dietrich Apartment Complex.
I support the idea of additional rental housing for the community but I do not feel that this
development will be a positive addition to the area. My main objections are the scale and the
design. It looks massive and unattractive and I think that we should expect more. I think the outside
stairs are not only unattractive but would not be something a prospective resident would consider
appropriate given the expected rental rate.
I think the issue of parking and the entrance to the complex has already been raised by others and I
agree that the developer has not presented a good plan.
Again - I support additional rental housing but we have the opportunity to make this something that
will not set the stage for a negative impact on the current neighbors .
Lisa Losh
603 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert
Item 3B - Page 122
From:Nick Melloni
To:26castlellc@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:11 PM
Hello,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 4:16 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Castle LLC <26castlellc@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
To:The City of Palm Desert City Council
From:26castlellc@gmail.com 1503Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date:August 19, 2022
Item 3B - Page 123
RE:Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
To:The City of Palm Desert City Council
From:26castlellc at 1503 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date:August 19, 2022
RE:Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395
unit apartment complex that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across
the street from our community. The proposed project location is the southwest
corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the project as proposed
are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert
Willow, consists of 112 units on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units
on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that property allows 22
units per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which is
primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will
change the entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet
enjoyment that we relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high
density housing project would significantly increase the amount
of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671 parking
spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required
parking spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit.
A complex with 395 apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy
and loud project. There are only 78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395
units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of the complex being
able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going
to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across
Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located
almost directly across from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners
that face Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight
towardtheir homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Can exiting the
Item 3B - Page 124
project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the
number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy
will be very high. The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will
significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor
parking will impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is
important to our local wildlife as well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the
developer has stated that they have created “view corridors” between the
buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful mountain views will be almost
complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive
and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we
will lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The
Retreat. Also note that when The Retreat project was approved and
construction began, the project property was zoned R-8. There was no way for
prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that the city
would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for
growth and the need to develop the property in question, but to do so in such
a drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank
Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building will obliterate
their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor
would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale
residential complex. However, as designed all the building will have exterior
staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are unattractive and in no way say
“upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge
$4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design
as proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share
units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is
located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat
fencing to surround the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and
car headlights. The actual distance between the street and fence line is quite
narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a meandering
Item 3B - Page 125
sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across
the street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes
bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect on area home values.
The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use management
practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment
complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our
property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is
not right for the proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an
area more conducive to apartment complexes. We moved to this quiet
neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction of a massive high
density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Item 3B - Page 126
From:Nick Melloni
To:dennybergum@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: HD Project Objection
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:16 PM
Denny & Vern,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:40 AM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: HD Project Objection
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Denny Bergum <dennybergum@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:38 AM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: HD Project Objection
From: Denny & Vern Bergum, 1902 Retreat Cir, Palm Desert, CA 92211
As a resident of The Retreat in Palm Desert, we are against the proposed 3 story, 395 unit apartment
complex that is proposing to build across the street from our community. Listed below are our
Item 3B - Page 127
reasons for not approving this project:
1. It will change the entire look of our area
2. Will significantly increase the amount of traffic and noise
3. Lighting within the project will impact our beautiful night views
4. The proposed 3 story complex will impact our mountain views
The proposed project may be a nice apartment complex , but is not suitable for this area.
.
Item 3B - Page 128
From:Nick Melloni
To:db10.21@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: New apartment complex
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:20 PM
Dave and Phyllis,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:05 AM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: New apartment complex
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: d b <db10.21@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:51 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: New apartment complex
Please note our opposition to the apartment complex proposed to be built at the corner of Frank
Sinatra and Portola. We agree with the ARC recommendation regarding the proposed project.
Dave and Phyllis Ball
Item 3B - Page 129
1502 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert
--
Dave Ball
Item 3B - Page 130
From:Nick Melloni
To:scottgellsworth@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: 394 unit proposed apartment project
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:24 PM
Scott & Deborah,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:04 AM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: 394 unit proposed apartment project
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Scott Ellsworth <scottgellsworth@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 6:51 AM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: 394 unit proposed apartment project
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
Item 3B - Page 131
From: Scott & Deborah Ellsworth - 2704 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date: November 1, 2022
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As recent purchasers in Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex that developer Hayes
Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community. The proposed project location is the southwest corner of Portola and
Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the project as proposed are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units on 15 acres. The proposed
complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a
development such as that within an area which is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change
the entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we relish in this neighborhood. The
introduction of high density housing project would significantly increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently
encounter. There are 671 parking spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking spaces
for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395 apartments and 671 parking spaces makes
for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2%
of the population of the complex being able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going to park?
Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across from The Retreat at Desert
Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight toward their homes in
addition to the increased street traffic. Can exiting the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the
number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high. The increased risk for motor
vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all
rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that they have created “view
corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful mountain views will be almost complete obliteration. The
proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that
we will lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that when The Retreat project
was approved and construction began, the project property was zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at
The Retreat to even begin to think that the city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to develop the property in
question, but to do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to
complete view loss. A 3 story building will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd
floor would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential complex. However, as designed all the
building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it
hard to believe that they will be able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as
proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only building
with elevator service is located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to surround the property. This will do
Item 3B - Page 132
nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance between the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been
stated that the developer will install a meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and
neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should
be applying transitional land use management practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment
complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the proposed location and neighborhood.
It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific reasons,
and sadly, the introduction of a massive high density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our community.
Item 3B - Page 133
From:Nick Melloni
To:goldmanlp007@gmail.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Erika Castellano; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Proposed 3 Level Apartment Complex / Retreat at Desert Willow Palm Desert Ca
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:31 PM
Frank and Carole,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: Proposed 3 Level Apartment Complex / Retreat at Desert Willow Palm Desert Ca
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Goldman LP <goldmanlp007@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 3:10 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Proposed 3 Level Apartment Complex / Retreat at Desert Willow Palm Desert Ca
To whom it may concern and to the powers that be of the city and permitting a
Palm Desert for land-use and zoning requirements:
Item 3B - Page 134
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395
unit apartment complex that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across
the street from our community. The proposed project location is the southwest
corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the project as proposed
are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert
Willow, consists of 112 units on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units
on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that property allows 22
units per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which is
primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will
change the entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet
enjoyment that we relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high
density housing project would significantly increase the amount
of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671 parking
spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required
parking spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit.
A complex with 395 apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy
and loud project. There are only 78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395
units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of the complex being
able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going
to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across
Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost
directly across from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face
Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight towardtheir
homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Can exiting the project on
Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number of U-
turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very
high. The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor
parking will impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is
important to our local wildlife as well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer
has stated that they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the
Item 3B - Page 135
obstruction of our beautiful mountain views will be almost complete
obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive and
a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will
lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat.
Also note that when The Retreat project was approved and
construction began, the project property was zoned R-8. There was no way for
prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that the city
would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for
growth and the need to develop the property in question, but to do so in such
a drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank
Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building will obliterate
their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor
would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale
residential complex. However, as designed all the building will have exterior
staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are unattractive and in no way say
“upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge
$4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design
as proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share
units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is
located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat
fencing to surround the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and
car headlights. The actual distance between the street and fence line is quite
narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a meandering
sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across
the street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes
bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect on area home values.
The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use management
practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment
complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our
property values.
Item 3B - Page 136
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is
not right for the proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an
area more conducive to apartment complexes. We moved to this quiet
neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction of a massive high
density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Frank and Carole Brent “Retreat”-at Desert Willow Property Owners
Goldman LP
831-585-8498
Item 3B - Page 137
From:Nick Melloni
To:shab@linkline.com
Cc:Richard Cannone; Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes-Dietrich “ proposed” apartment complex
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 7:57:58 PM
Mark,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Richard Cannone <rcannone@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Rosie Lua <rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: FW: Hayes-Dietrich “ proposed” apartment complex
FYI
Erika Castellano
Management Specialist
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Linkline <shab@linkline.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Hayes-Dietrich “ proposed” apartment complex
I have written to the City of Palm Desert regarding this project. I mentioned parking, traffics, the
unsightly balconies etc. Now that I have found out the city architectural committee has denied the
current proposal and I hoping the planning committee will do the same. Hayes- Dietrich needs to
either come back to the architectural committee with a much better plan or drop this project.
Item 3B - Page 138
I understand the state wants more affordable housing with more dense projects, however this is not
the area for it. They can purchase property on the north side of the I 10 or any other less populated
areas.
As I previously stated in my earlier emails to the council, this highly dense project, would bring road
congestion, increased street parking in adjacent neighborhoods, increased noise, and significant light
pollution. Ultimately, this will result in a decrease in property values in the neighboring
communities.
This type of project needs to be moved to another less dense that will not cause so many problems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Have a nice day sincerely Mark Shabashov
2104 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
951-805-4507
Shab@linkline.com
Item 3B - Page 139
Item 3B - Page 140
Item 3B - Page 141
Item 3B - Page 142
Item 3B - Page 143
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Ramzi & Nicole Seikaly - 1201 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date: November 03, 2022
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex
that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community. The
proposed project location is the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the
project as proposed are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units
on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed
zoning for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an
area which is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the
entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we
relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high density housing project would significantly
increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671
parking spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking
spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395
apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78
visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of
the complex being able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going
to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across
from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car
headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased street traffic.
Can exiting the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the
number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high.
The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact
the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as
well as local sky/star watchers.
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that
they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful
mountain views will be almost complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings
are massive and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will
lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that
Item 3B - Page 144
when The Retreat project was approved and construction began, the project property was
zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think
that the city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to
develop the property in question, but to do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to the
area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building
will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor
would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential complex.
However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior
staircases are unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be
able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as
proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the
“upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to surround
the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance
between the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will
install a meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the street from
The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a
detrimental effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional
land use management practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density
apartment complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our
property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the
proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment
complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction
of a massive high density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Item 3B - Page 145
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Ron Armstrong & Claire Salisbury, 403 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date: Nov 4th, 2022
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
We at the Retreat at Desert Willow are all extremely concerned about the proposed construction across
the street from us. We purchased our properties based on living in a quite and peaceful neighborhood
and now there seems to be a shift in the zoning bylaw by the city which goes completely against the
spirit of this community.
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objections to the 3-story, 395 unit apartment complex
that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community. The
proposed project location is the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objections to the
project as proposed are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units
on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed
zoning for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an
area which is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the
entire dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we
relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of high density housing project would significantly
increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671
parking spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking
spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395
apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78
visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of
the complex being able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going
to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra.
3. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across
from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car
headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased street traffic.
Can exiting the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the
number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high.
The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact
the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as
well as local sky/star watchers.
Item 3B - Page 146
5. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that
they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful
mountain views will be almost complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings
are massive and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will
lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that
when The Retreat project was approved and construction began, the project property was
zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think
that the city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to
change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to
develop the property in question, but to do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to the
area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building
will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor
would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential complex.
However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior
staircases are unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be
able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as
proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the
“upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of the complex.
7. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to surround
the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance
between the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will
install a meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space.
8. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the street from
The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a
detrimental effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional
land use management practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density
apartment complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our
property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the
proposed location and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment
complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introduction
of a massive high density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Item 3B - Page 147
From:Nick Melloni
To:wingtee87@gmail.com
Cc:Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Please Reconsider The Portola Apartment Project
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 8:07:56 PM
Hello Allan and Karla,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: wingtee87@gmail.com <wingtee87@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: wingtee87@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Please Reconsider The Portola Apartment Project
From: wingtee87@gmail.com
Date: November 4, 2022 at 9:51:44 AM CDT
To: ecastellan@cityofpalmdesert.org
Subject: Please Reconsider The Portola Apartment Project
One has to wonder why the Palm Desert ARC exists. If the ARC’s recommendations
regarding the Portola/Sinatra Apartments Project are ignored by the Planning
Commission what’s the point of having the Committee? The Portola project is the
wrong idea and plan for many reasons as stated by all area residents and the ARC. My
guess is that there must be some sort of nefarious reasoning going on amongst City
Council members and the Planning Commission.
Please don’t start acting like our neighboring City Councils to the west who care only
about their personal gain over what’s best for Palm Desert residents .
Sincerely Allan & Karla Taylor
Item 3B - Page 148
1802 Retreat Circle, 92260
Sent from my iPhone
Item 3B - Page 149
From:Nick Melloni
To:susan tripp
Cc:Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: New builds on Portola and Frank Sinatra
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 8:09:13 PM
Hello Susan,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: susan tripp <suegrafftripp@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 8:43 AM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Fwd: New builds on Portola and Frank Sinatra
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: susan tripp <suegrafftripp@gmail.com>
Date: November 4, 2022 at 8:16:43 AM PDT
To: erikacastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
Subject: Fwd: New builds on Portola and Frank Sinatra
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: susan tripp <suegrafftripp@gmail.com>
Item 3B - Page 150
Date: November 4, 2022 at 8:14:11 AM PDT
To: erikacastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org
Subject: Fwd: New builds on Portola and Frank Sinatra
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: susan tripp <suegrafftripp@gmail.com>
Date: November 4, 2022 at 8:09:58 AM PDT
To: erikacostellano@cityofplamdesert.org
Subject: Fwd: New builds on Portola and Frank Sinatra
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: susan tripp <suegrafftripp@gmail.com>
Date: November 4, 2022 at 8:00:55 AM PDT
To: ecastellan@cityofpalmdesert.org
Subject: New builds on Portola and Frank
Sinatra
To whom this may concern:
My name is Susan Tripp, and I live in The
Retreat at Desert Willow.
I want to register my complaint of the new
purposed units across the street.
We were told that it would be an upscale
development, and it is far from that.
The stairs on the outside are an eyesore. We
have a few of those close to my home in Bend
Oregon. So ugly, AND, an accident waiting to
happen!
There are not enough parking spaces. Three
story units. The list goes on and on.
Please deny this development with this design.
Thank you,
Susan Tripp
2602 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, 92260
Sent from my iPad
Item 3B - Page 151
Item 3B - Page 152
From:Nick Melloni
To:Pat Duplan
Cc:Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: Hayes-Dietrich proposed apartment complex
Date:Monday, November 7, 2022 8:11:13 PM
Hello Patricia,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence. This email will be included as part of the record for
the proposed development located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra
Drive.
You will also receive a courtesy email for any future public hearings on a Commission and/or City
Council.
If you have any questions related to this proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact information listed below. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Duplan <patduplan@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 6:16 PM
To: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Hayes-Dietrich proposed apartment complex
As a new resident to Palm Desert I am against the project for numerous reasons:
I have recently moved to the “The Retreat at Desert Willow”.
This project will change the dynamics of my desert community
a: noise
This is a high density complex and will significantly increase the amount of street traffic
b: traffic
The main entrance to this complex is directly across the street my my community.
Exiting you may only turn right which will result in an increased amount of Uturns This could result in
a high risk of vehicle collisions as the exit for the golf academy is so close
c: lighting
The lighting standards for outdoor parking and headlights being directed straight toward their
homes.
d: loss of views
The view corridors between buildings will be an obstruction to our views, which is why many of us
purchased here. The homes on Frank Sinatra will also be affected.
e: design of project
Item 3B - Page 153
Exterior staircases and balconies seen on the third floor is a very poor design
395 apartments makes for a very busy and loud project. All in all a very poor design for a Palm
Desert community. We are a low density neighborhood and this project will sadly be a detriment to
our community.
I understand the need for progress and more housing, However this project is not right for the
proposed location and neighborhood. Perhaps in an area more conducive to apartment complexes.
Let’s keep our low density housing so we all can see our beautiful mountains and sunsets. Please
consider this as you make your decision.
Thanking you in advance.
Patricia Duplan
Sent from my iPad
Item 3B - Page 154
To: The City of Palm Desert City Council
From: Dave & Carol Sams, 1004 Retreat Cir, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Date: November 8, 2022
RE: Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
As residents of Palm Desert, we want to voice our objecNons to the 3-story, 394 unit apartment complex
that developer Hayes Dietrich is proposing to build across the street from our community. The proposed
project locaNon is the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Our objecNons to the project as
proposed are based on numerous reasons:
1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units
on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed
zoning for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an
area which is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drasNc shiW in our community. It will change the
enNre dynamic of the desert community that we love.
2.Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we
relish in this neighborhood. The introducNon of high density housing project would significantly
increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 671
parking spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking
spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395
apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78
visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the populaNon of
the complex being able to have visitors at any given Nme. Where are all the excess visitors going
to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residenNal properNes across Frank Sinatra.
3.Tra ffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across
from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car
headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addiNon to the increased street traffic.
Can exiNng the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number
of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high. The
increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase.
4.Light PolluNon: LighNng standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact
the Dark Sky IniNaNve that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as
well as local sky/star watchers.
5.Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that
they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstrucNon of our beauNful
mountain views will be almost complete obliteraNon. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings
are massive and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for miNgaNng the views that we will
Item 3B - Page 155
lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that
when The Retreat project was approved and construcNon began, the project property was zoned
R-8. There was no way for prospecNve homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that
the city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to change the
zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to develop the
property in quesNon, but to do so in such a drasNc fashion is not conducive to the area.
Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building will
obliterate their south facing views. In addiNon to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor would
have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra.
6.Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residenNal complex.
However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior
staircases are unahracNve and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be
able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as
proposed tends to make me think that mulNple families will start to share units to cover the
“upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of the complex.
7.Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only verNcal slat fencing to surround
the property. This will do nothing to miNgate noise and car headlights. The actual distance
between the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will
install a meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been
shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite Nght on space.
8.Property Value Loss: The installaNon of a high density housing project across the street from The
Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental
effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transiNonal land use
management pracNces. Permikng the installaNon of a 395 unit, high density apartment
complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negaNve impact on our property values.
In summary, the proposed project may be a “nice apartment complex”, but it is not right for the
proposed locaNon and neighborhood. It needs to be built in an area more conducive to apartment
complexes. We moved to this quiet neighborhood for specific reasons, and sadly, the introducNon of
a massive high density housing project directly across the street will be a detriment to our
community.
Item 3B - Page 156
APPLICANT(S) CASE NUMBER(S) LOCATION PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION APPROVAL
DATE STATUS
APPOGEE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES, LLC
12149 W. CENTER ROAD
OMAHA, NE 68144
PP 21-0009 APN: 694-190-087
Millennium Apartments: Approval of a 330-unit
multifamily apartment dwellings on a 15-acre parcel.
Proposal includes 20% affordable units.
In Review
Western National Group
8 Executive Circle Irvine,
CA 92614
PP/CUP 22-0004 75580 Gerald Ford Drive
Spanish Walk 150 units: Originally approved in 2005
by PP 05-12, GPA and C/Z 05-02, and TT 33837.
Today, the applicant is proposing to construct the 150-
units (affordable) on 6.86 acres
In Review
UHC 00357 Palm Desert,
L.P. a CA Limited Partnership
2000 E. Fourth Street, Suite
205, Santa
Ana, CA 92705
PP/CUP 22-0002 APNs: 694-130-017, 018 Urban Crossings: Approval of 176-units (affordable)
multi-family housing with amenities In Review
PALM COMMUNITIES
100 PACIFICA, SUITE 203
IRVINE, CA 92618
PP 22-0003 APN: 694-120-028 Palm Villas: 241 Unit multifamily apartment on a 10.49-
acre parcel. Proposal includes 100% affordable units. In Review
WILLIAM MALEY
74-923 Highway 111
Indian Wells, CA 92210
PP/CUP 20-0001
TTM 37870 44-705 Deep Canyon Drive
MALEY CONDOMINIUMS: Proposed 12-unit, three-
story condominium project along Deep Canyon Drive,
south of Highway 111. Improvements include new
buildings, landscaping, and utilities.
In Review
GHA COMPANIES, INC.
30-875 Date Palm Drive, Ste.
C-2
Cathedral City, CA 92234
GPA 21-0001
PP 21-0001
TTM 37993
APN(s) 694-300-001, 002,
005, 014, 015
MONTAGE: Proposed 63-unit single-famiily residential
development on 24 acres at theintersection of Shepard
Lane and Julie Drive.
6/10/2021 Under Construction
LENNAR HOMES 980
Montecito Drive, Suite 302,
Corona, CA 92879
TT 31071
Northeast corner of Gerald
Ford Drive and Gateway
Drive (APN
653-260-030)
DOLCE DEVELOPMENT: Original approved on
10/28/2004. Construction of 159 single-family lots, 11
lots for common area. To date, 27 homes have been
completed. On September 14, 2021, Lennar
purchased the remaining lots and submitted new
architecure for the remaining 132 lots.
9/14/2021 Under Construction
UNIVERSITY PARK
INVESTORS, LLC
3875 Hopyard Road, Ste. 180
Pleasanton, CA 944588
PP 18-0005
TTM 37506
Southeast corner of Portola
Avenue and Gerald Ford
Drive
UNIVERSITY PARK: Approval of a 174+ acre
subdivision consisting of 1,100 housing units, eight
distinct housing types (detached single-family, alley-
loaded, duplexes, multi-family apartments) and 11+
acres of public parks and 7+ acres of private open
space
11/20/2018 Under Construction
PONDEROSA HOMES II,
LLC.
6130 Stoneridge Mall Road,
Pleasanton, California 94588
PP 14-170
TT 36351
South side of Dick Kelly
Drive, between Cortesia Way
and Dinah Shore Drive
(APN 694-130-024)
SAGE: Approval of a 30+ acres subdivision for 111
single-family home lots and one 8+ acre lot for future
multi-family development.
12/2/2014 Under Construction
CHRISTOPHER
MCFADDEN
75-145 St. Charles Place,
Ste. 4
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CZ 16-280
PP 16-280
CUP 16-280
Palm Desert County Club
former Executive Golf Course
(APN 637-190-121, 024, 027)
PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB FORMER
EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE: Conversion of a former
9-hole golf course into 69 condominium units with open
space and recreational amenities
5/10/2018 Approved
Pacific West Communities
430 East State Street, Suite
100
Eacle, ID 83616
PP/CUP21-0004
South Side of Gerald Ford
Drive, East of The Riverside
County Sheriff Station
Vitalia Apartments: Approval of 269-unit multi-family
dwellings on an 11.943-acre parcel 8/26/2021 Approv ed
Lindquist Development
PO Box 42135
Portland, OR 97242
PP20-0005 74-425 Abronia Trail
LINDQUIST: Proposed 4-unit, 2-story, apartment
building, located near the intersection of Abronia Trail
and Sunrise Lane
10/5/2021 Approved
DESERT LUXURY
PARTMENTS, LLC
2755 S. Nellis Blvd., Ste 10
Las Vegas, CA 89121
CZ 21-0001
PP 21-0008
TTM 38033
APN 694-300-003
DESERT LUXURY APARTMENTS: Proposed 32-unit
condominium project with pool and recreational
amenities at the southwest corner of Shepard Lane
and Gerald Ford Drive.
3/10/2022 Approved
BRAVO GARDENS
APARTMENTS LLC
72670 FRED WARING
DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA
92260
PP16-394 / MISC 21-
0032 74-555 Hovely Lane East
THE SANDS APARTMENTS: 388-unit apartment
complex on 18 acres located at the southwest corner
of Jasmine Court and Hovley Lane West
4/26/2018 Approv ed
PD REALTY, LLC
32840 Pacific Coast Highway
, Ste. Q
Dana Point, CA 92629
PP 17-035
TTM 37339
Northwest corner of Frank
Sinatra Drive and Cook Street
VILLAS AT COOK STREET: Approval of 80 two-story
detached residential units with open space amenities.
A 1.3-acre parcel is provided at the corner of Frank
Sinatra Drive and Cook Street for commercial use.
9/19/2017 Approv ed
SUMITT PROPERTIES 2082
Michelson Dr, Suite 100,
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 852-0322
CZ 05-03
TT 34179
PP 05-02
73-600 35th Avenue (APN
653-250-007)
FALLING WATERS: Construction of 247 residential
condominium units on a 20-acre site. To date, 20
homes have been completed.
2/23/2006 Approv ed
GHA COMPANIES, INC.
30-875 Date Palm Drive, Ste.
C-2
Cathedral City, CA 92234
DA/GPA/CZ/EA 14-332
TPM 36792
TTM 36793
Northeast corner of Gerald
Ford Drive and Portola
Avenue
GENESIS @ MILLENNIUM: 166-home subdivision
featuring three distinct model home styles and sizes.
Part of the Millennium Palm Desert Specific Plan
3/26/2016 Completed 2021
AVENIDA PARTNERS
130 Newport Center Drive,
Ste. 220
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PP 18-0004 40-445 Portola Avenue AVENIDA SENIOR LIVING: 161- unit skilled nursing
facility at Villa Portofino 7/17/2018 Completed 2020
WOLFF ENTERPRISES II,
LLC
6710 Camelback Road, Ste.
100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
CZ 18-0002
PP 18-0003 74-300 Country Club Drive W OLFF SENIOR LIVING: A 164 independent senior
living facility with clubhouse building and amenities.11/15/2018 Completed 2021
ALLIED REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS
409 Santa Monica Blvd Ste. E
Santa Monica, CA 90401
PP/CUP 16-102 73-255 Country Club Drive
ARC VILLAGE: Notice of Exemption for the approval
of a 36-unit multi-family residential project, with an
8,200 sq. ft. clubhouse facility to be located on the
Desert Arc Campus. The residential units will be made
available to adults with developmental disabilities.
3/17/2016 Not Active
City of Palm Desert Residential Projects List - March 2022
Contact the Planning Department at (760) 346-0611 for additional project information
Item 3B - Page 157
Item 3B - Page 158
Item 3B - Page 159
From:Nick Melloni
To:Adrienne Markes
Cc:Erika Castellano; Monica O"Reilly; Rosie Lua; Richard Cannone
Subject:RE: Objection to Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Date:Wednesday, November 30, 2022 11:29:43 PM
Received. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Adrienne Markes <adrienne@adriennemarkes.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 11:28 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Erika Castellano <ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Objection to Hayes-Dietrich Proposed Apartment Complex Project
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Hello Nick,
We received the public hearing notice regarding the HD project. We
are owners at The Retreat at Desert Willow and strongly object to this
project. We are not able to attend the public hearing and wanted to
express our position on this proposed project. We believe the city
should reject this proposal and have detailed out our concerns in the
attached letter.
Thank you,
Adrienne & Phill Markes
2102 Retreat
Item 3B - Page 160
Item 3B - Page 161
Item 3B - Page 162
From:Nick Melloni
To:shab@linklinkline.com
Cc:Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission - December 6, 2022
Date:Monday, December 5, 2022 10:10:34 AM
Hello Shab,
The aerial photo shown on page 53 is a dated as it shows a time when the Retreat site was still
vacant/owned by the former Redevelopment Agency and the when the Santa Rosa Golf Course was
still in operation. The photo appears to have been included as an aerial photograph but does not
serve relevant as the exhibit is not referenced elsewhere in the text of the Environmental Analysis.
Page 54 shows the site plan of the project which would not typically show the development on
adjacent parcels, though this document does show the edge condition of the Retreat.
The text of the analysis, the scope of review, and each of the reports reference the Retreat and all
other existing development projects, as well as any planned projects. I assure you, the complete
packet does not leave out the existing context of the Retreat and other surrounding communities.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: shab@linklinkline.com <shab@linkline.com>
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 8:17 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Re: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission - December 6, 2022
Hey Nick,
Can you tell me why on page 53 and 54 aerial photos of the project site, The Retreat at Desert
Willow development is not shown? Looks like an empty lot! I think this is purposely not giving the
planning commission the big picture of the impact this project has on the surrounding communities.
Have a nice day sincerely Mark Shabashov
On Dec 2, 2022, at 6:59 PM, Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org> wrote:
Hello,
Here is a link to the full Planning Commission Agenda for December
Item 3B - Page 163
6, 2022 with attachments:
https://cityofpalmdesert.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php
?view_id=3&clip_id=829
The 394-unit apartment development case information and staff
report are available here as a 100-megabyte download:
https://cpdftp.org/link/nQsd29ip6j7oHgCZqZqyOz
The meeting will be held in person and over zoom.
Here is the meeting information and the zoom link.
Meeting location:
City Hall – Council Chamber
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, this meeting may be conducted by
teleconference.
• To participate via Zoom, use the following link:
https://palmdesert.zoom.us/j/84739707419 .
• To participate via phone: Dial (213) 338-8477 or (602) 753-0140,
enter the Zoom Webinar ID:
847 3970 7419 followed by #. Indicate that you are a participant by
pressing # to continue.
During the meeting, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait
for the Recording Secretary
to announce your name/phone number. Press *6 to unmute your
line and limit your comments
to three minutes.
• Written public comment may also be submitted to
planning@cityofpalmdesert.org. Emails
received by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting will be distributed to the
Item 3B - Page 164
Commission. Any
correspondence received during or after the meeting will be
distributed to the Commission as
soon as practicable and retained for the official record. Emails will
not be read aloud except
as an ADA accommodation.
Contact me with any questions. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Nick Melloni
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission - December 6, 2022
Hello,
This email is being sent to you as a courtesy notice of the December 6, meeting of the
Planning Commission (PC).
Case No. PP/CUP 22-0006 for a 394-unit multifamily apartment development at the
southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue will appear on the agenda
for December 6th. A copy of the hearing notice is attached. Contact me with any
questions. Thank you.
<image002.png>
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
<image003.jpg>
www.cityofpalmdesert.org
<image004.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
Install the Palm Desert In Touch app to stay in touch with your community
Item 3B - Page 165
Android Apple Mobile Web
<1_12-06-22_agn.pdf>
Item 3B - Page 166
From:Edith Taylor
To:Planning E-mail
Subject:Portola and Frank Sinatra Development
Date:Monday, December 5, 2022 4:02:39 PM
I am sending you this email for presentation to thePlanning Commission. It sets forth my
reasons why the proposed development plans by Hayes Dietrich, LLC for the 18-acre lot at the
Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue should not be approved as in its
present state.
THE DESIGN INFRINGES ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY *(Please see
California statute below. California law guarantees a right to privacy in its constitution.)
The architect has drafted a plan that includes three -3 story buildings (building type C) that
are on the Frank Sinatra side of their site plan. These buildings are the tallest in the plan that
have views into the back yards of others. The project will have 394 residents. We were also
told that the entrance to the apartments (type C) will be facing Frank Sinatra. I don’t know if
the plan includes balconies. I also note that there are other residential building types but they
apparently aren't built where tenants can look into someone’s backyard.
The Pele Development has 14 residences. Seven (7) of those homes have their back yards on
Frank Sinatra. Six (6) of the seven (7) homes have swimming pools and the seventh home
(ours) is in negotiation with contractors to install a swimming pool this year. Although it isn’t
a large community it is very diverse. The Frank Sinatra side of those seven homes include
families with young children, elderly residents and working residents. We all use our
backyards.
My sister, Gwenette Parker, Gerald Taylor, my husband, and I purchased a residence in the
Pele Pace Development in 2009. Our back yard is on Frank Sinatra. A brick wall gives us the
privacy that any home owner would expect and require. The present architect plans from
Hayes Dietrich, LLC not only obstructs our views of the mountain to the south but gives
unobstructed views from their apartment(s) location right into all of the Pele Place- on the
south- back yards. That means the tenants will not only have a beautiful view of the mountains
to the north but they will have full views into our back yards. There are no trees or bushes high
enough to stop those tenants from looking into our backyards and there is nothing to stop any
potential tenant from infringing on our rights to privacy.
Each household in the Pele Place Development has a different reason to want to protect the
privacy they presently have in their back yards. There are families on the south side of Pele
Place with very young children. Each of these families have swimming pools. Wouldn’t they
also want and deserve to have privacy as their children play and swim in their back yard?
Some neighbors work and return home and simply want to relax in their back yards in private.
We are all in our eighties in our household and have used the residence for our own specific
benefits. My husband has been diagnosed with a muscular disorder. He benefits from walking
and exercising in private in our back yard. My sister has a skin disorder that requires constant
treatment. She uses the back yard to disrobe in privacy near her bedroom where she can
receive the benefits from the sun. She’ll only be able to do this in the privacy of our back yard.
We are finally getting a pool and I’ll be able to use the jacuzzi in the backyard as part of the
therapy for my bad knees. We don’t relish the thought that residents from the new
Item 3B - Page 167
development across the street will be able to watch us as we go through our routine of trying
to live a quiet life in private.
POTENTIAL NUISANCE
I would also suggest that the ability of the tenants to look at will into our backyards
may constitute a nuisance."Nuisance Law and Legal Definition. In legal terminology, a
nuisance is a substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, which may
be intentional, negligent or ultrahazardous in origin, and must be a result of
defendant's activity."
MISCELLANEOUS REASONS
Although the residents on the North side of the Pele Development will still have their
northern mountain views they will feel the impact of the traffic that will result from this
proposed devlopment. Shortly after we purchased the real property in 2010 a lady was
driving north on Portola and ended up in the landscape right behind our backyard on
Frank Sinatra. Luckily we had the brick wall to protect us. The Pele Place Development
was able to claim damages for the landscape she destroyed and the palm tree that she
hit. I am reminded that 1) that the accident and damage to Pele Place will only increase
with the new proposed development and 2) our brick wall won’t protect us from the
glaring views that the tenants will have into our back yards.
Pele Place was in foreclosure in 2009 when we purchased our residence from the bank.
The high interest rates we have today make me also ask that the Palm Desert department
that deals with financing and new construction will make sure that we’re not left next
door to an abandoned project. Cody Dietrich, the developer, says that this is his first
solo project but that he has worked with other developers.
Conclusion
I believe in progress but I also believe that new developers to an area have an obligation to be
considerate of their new neighbors. The Pele Place Development has been completely
overlooked and ignored. Adjustments were made for the residents at the Retreat at Desert
Willow located on Portola Avenue. Some changes were made to the project. I believe the
buildings were changed or moved or lowered to preserve their mountain views to the west. No
other residents except the Pele Place Development residents have been dealt a “double
whammy”. First, Hayes Dietrich, LLC wants to build three 3- story apartment buildings
constructed in a manner that takes away our southern mountain views and second, Hayes
Dietrich, LLC wants to build their three 3-story buildings recklessly giving their tenants open
views into the Pele Place Development residents lives and private backyards.
A simple solution would be to relocate the apartments to another area on the site that wouldn’t
invade the privacy of others and to lower the number of stories in the apartment buildings
from three to two. No where else on Frank Sinatra are there three story apartment building. At
the very least the apartments should be constructed where no tenant(s) are given the ability to
have views into the back yards of any resident especially Pele Place Development residents.
Thanks for your consideration.
Edith Taylor
Item 3B - Page 168
Pele Place Development Resident and President of the Pele Place Development HOA
323-29
Item 3B - Page 169
Susan Yun
2702 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
December 6, 2022
Nick Melloni, Senior Planner
City of Palm Desert
Dear Mr. Melloni,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond in writing to the proposed development by Hayes Dietrich,
LLC for a residential 394 unit multifamily development located at the corner of Portola Ave. and Frank
Sinatra Drive, within the Palm Desert community. It appears from the notice that the city is the lead
agency in this project and had already determined that any significant negative impacts can be
successfully mitigated to less than a significant level per your written notice.
As a new resident of the Palm Desert Community and potential neighbor to this new community, I
welcome the opportunity to address my concerns in this letter.
It appears the proposed housing development meets the rather broad dwelling unit standards per
average gross acre (1-40). Is it then safe to assume that the project meets the minimum open common
space, set back codes, increased traffic congestion and height restrictions? We have some concern that
the building height will now impede the mountain views in our condominium complex, which I would
consider an existing infrastructure.
I spent some time reviewing the Palm Desert 2015 Millennium Specific Plan. In addition, the Estonia
Protocol, developed in 2010 gave hope to a 30% reduction in city wide electric and gas consumption. To
quote the Sustainability Plan: Sustainability is the ultimate environmental pursuit. It integrates all
environmental, social even economic issues.”
Design guidelines outlined on Page 29 of the Millennium Specific Plan gave credence to the concepts
that all new project developments incorporate the City’s Sustainability Plan to the greatest extent
possible. “Each phase of development must be self-sustaining in terms of scale, access and amenities.”
These concerns were individually addressed in the Millennium Plan and included: traffic noise, increased
greenhouse gases, increased water use, increased electricity use, increased heat due to concrete and
asphalt for parking as well as "crowding" in the allotted space".
The Palm Desert Action Plan references Palm Desert as a great place to live and needs to be nurtured.
Does the high number of multi-units planned for (13 Buildings and 394 multi-family units) meet the
“Built Environment Ordinance” which refers to using green building concepts in all new construction?
Does the Sustainability Committee participate in review of new housing developments?
Item 3B - Page 170
And outside of economic gain, are all 394 units needed in Palm Desert? I assume this housing project is
NOT deemed “affordable housing”, although I understand there is housing crises in California.
Apartments seem to require more resources for maintained and upkeep.
Palm Desert is approximately 17,290 acres. There are 12 parks in Palm Desert totaling 200 acres. There
are approximately 100 golf courses equaling 16,000 acres, not considered “free “public space.
Therefore, the City offers 1.15% park space to its residents. How does yet another housing development
fit into the city’s strategic plan for sustainable efforts? And are you really offering the community a
chance to make a difference in your City Planning?
I realize that forward thinking to improve communities recreational space, focus on sustainability and
provide Palm Desert residents with a truly progressive infrastructure cause great fiscal impact. I
welcome the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns as we face huge climate impact and
seemingly impossible goals to change our current housing development practices.
Thank you.
Susan Yun
Item 3B - Page 171
From:Martin AlvarezTo:Richard CannoneCc:Rosie Lua; Nick Melloni; Monica O"ReillySubject:FW: Portola/Frank Sinatra projectDate:Wednesday, December 7, 2022 11:03:35 AMRichard,I received this email from Mr. Dave Sams who resides at the Retreat. I know Mr. Sams from interactions relatedDesert Willow, but I don't know if he is aware that I am not in Planning anymore.Can you please respond to Mr. Sams and pass this alone to the Commissioners. Let me know if I can help any away.Thanks.Martin AlvarezPublic Works DirectorPh: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6467malvarez@cityofpalmdesert.org-----Original Message-----
From: Linkline <shab@linkline.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Martin Alvarez <malvarez@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Cc: Dave Sams <davidasams@gmail.com>
Subject: Portola/Frank Sinatra project
Please forward this to all members of the planning commission.
Last night, I was at the planing meeting regarding the 394 unit apartment complex at the corner of Portola and Frank
Sinatra . I was very disappointed in the fact that the developer basically told the architectural committee to F off, and
the planning commission basically said that is ok without looking deeper into what is best for the community. You
just took Nick’s word that there was nothing you could do about it. I could tell some of you were concerned about
where this type of behavior will lead the city to. You should ask your attorney to meet with your commission , to
explain the new state recommendations for high density affordable living dwellings , and what you can and can’t do.
How to protect the public from bullying developers. I could tell last night, none of the commission was up to date
with this issue.
Public safety being the main concern to change a project, leads me to the question, why wouldn’t you request
another traffic analysis from a different firm . The current study looks at only a 2% growth and was done during a
covid period where there was definitely a decrease in normal traffic.
To represent the public you need to do all you can to be up to date on things you are voting on.
The fact that you are even talking about the developer providing screening to Pele Place (7) homes , tells you both
the city and the developer know that a 3 story building with balconies looking into residents living rooms is wrong ,
with set backs inappropriate to protect the public from this privacy invasion.
Nick also did not address my traffic concern on the right turn exit only driveway off Portola. This area will be a
disaster, since just past that exit, there is nothing preventing cars from making a u-turn with cars driving 50 plus
miles per hour.
I stated, when I spoke that pages 53 and 54 of the pdf file sent to all of us , were from 10 plus years ago and did not
show The Retreat and did still show the Santa Rosa golf course in all its previous beauty. Nick stated it did not
affect anyone on the commissions opinion on this project. I am not sure how he would know this? I emailed him
Item 3B - Page 172
before the meeting about this issue and miraculously at yesterday’s meeting he had updated current photos. This
issue is very concerning to me and the lack of professionalism showed at the meeting. Please ask the city attorney to
get a good nights sleep prior to the meeting, napping is not recommended in my view and gives the community
members the opinion, he does not care.
On a positive note, I do appreciate you involvement in city politics. It is time consuming and effects the lives of all
Palm Desert residents. I just expect you to have All the information you need in front of you, before making a final
decision.
Have a nice day sincerely Mark Shabashov
Item 3B - Page 173
Item 3B - Page 174
Item 3B - Page 175
From:Nick Melloni
To:shab@linklinkline.com
Cc:Rosie Lua; Monica O"Reilly
Subject:RE: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission - December 6, 2022
Date:Monday, December 5, 2022 10:10:34 AM
Hello Shab,
The aerial photo shown on page 53 is a dated as it shows a time when the Retreat site was still
vacant/owned by the former Redevelopment Agency and the when the Santa Rosa Golf Course was
still in operation. The photo appears to have been included as an aerial photograph but does not
serve relevant as the exhibit is not referenced elsewhere in the text of the Environmental Analysis.
Page 54 shows the site plan of the project which would not typically show the development on
adjacent parcels, though this document does show the edge condition of the Retreat.
The text of the analysis, the scope of review, and each of the reports reference the Retreat and all
other existing development projects, as well as any planned projects. I assure you, the complete
packet does not leave out the existing context of the Retreat and other surrounding communities.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: shab@linklinkline.com <shab@linkline.com>
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 8:17 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: Re: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission - December 6, 2022
Hey Nick,
Can you tell me why on page 53 and 54 aerial photos of the project site, The Retreat at Desert
Willow development is not shown? Looks like an empty lot! I think this is purposely not giving the
planning commission the big picture of the impact this project has on the surrounding communities.
Have a nice day sincerely Mark Shabashov
On Dec 2, 2022, at 6:59 PM, Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org> wrote:
Hello,
Here is a link to the full Planning Commission Agenda for December
Item 3B - Page 176
6, 2022 with attachments:
https://cityofpalmdesert.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php
?view_id=3&clip_id=829
The 394-unit apartment development case information and staff
report are available here as a 100-megabyte download:
https://cpdftp.org/link/nQsd29ip6j7oHgCZqZqyOz
The meeting will be held in person and over zoom.
Here is the meeting information and the zoom link.
Meeting location:
City Hall – Council Chamber
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, this meeting may be conducted by
teleconference.
• To participate via Zoom, use the following link:
https://palmdesert.zoom.us/j/84739707419 .
• To participate via phone: Dial (213) 338-8477 or (602) 753-0140,
enter the Zoom Webinar ID:
847 3970 7419 followed by #. Indicate that you are a participant by
pressing # to continue.
During the meeting, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait
for the Recording Secretary
to announce your name/phone number. Press *6 to unmute your
line and limit your comments
to three minutes.
• Written public comment may also be submitted to
planning@cityofpalmdesert.org. Emails
received by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting will be distributed to the
Item 3B - Page 177
Commission. Any
correspondence received during or after the meeting will be
distributed to the Commission as
soon as practicable and retained for the official record. Emails will
not be read aloud except
as an ADA accommodation.
Contact me with any questions. Thank you.
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
From: Nick Melloni
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Nick Melloni <nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org>
Subject: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission - December 6, 2022
Hello,
This email is being sent to you as a courtesy notice of the December 6, meeting of the
Planning Commission (PC).
Case No. PP/CUP 22-0006 for a 394-unit multifamily apartment development at the
southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue will appear on the agenda
for December 6th. A copy of the hearing notice is attached. Contact me with any
questions. Thank you.
<image002.png>
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
<image003.jpg>
www.cityofpalmdesert.org
<image004.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
Install the Palm Desert In Touch app to stay in touch with your community
Item 3B - Page 178
Android Apple Mobile Web
<1_12-06-22_agn.pdf>
Item 3B - Page 179
From:Edith Taylor
To:Planning E-mail
Subject:Portola and Frank Sinatra Development
Date:Monday, December 5, 2022 4:02:39 PM
I am sending you this email for presentation to thePlanning Commission. It sets forth my
reasons why the proposed development plans by Hayes Dietrich, LLC for the 18-acre lot at the
Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue should not be approved as in its
present state.
THE DESIGN INFRINGES ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY *(Please see
California statute below. California law guarantees a right to privacy in its constitution.)
The architect has drafted a plan that includes three -3 story buildings (building type C) that
are on the Frank Sinatra side of their site plan. These buildings are the tallest in the plan that
have views into the back yards of others. The project will have 394 residents. We were also
told that the entrance to the apartments (type C) will be facing Frank Sinatra. I don’t know if
the plan includes balconies. I also note that there are other residential building types but they
apparently aren't built where tenants can look into someone’s backyard.
The Pele Development has 14 residences. Seven (7) of those homes have their back yards on
Frank Sinatra. Six (6) of the seven (7) homes have swimming pools and the seventh home
(ours) is in negotiation with contractors to install a swimming pool this year. Although it isn’t
a large community it is very diverse. The Frank Sinatra side of those seven homes include
families with young children, elderly residents and working residents. We all use our
backyards.
My sister, Gwenette Parker, Gerald Taylor, my husband, and I purchased a residence in the
Pele Pace Development in 2009. Our back yard is on Frank Sinatra. A brick wall gives us the
privacy that any home owner would expect and require. The present architect plans from
Hayes Dietrich, LLC not only obstructs our views of the mountain to the south but gives
unobstructed views from their apartment(s) location right into all of the Pele Place- on the
south- back yards. That means the tenants will not only have a beautiful view of the mountains
to the north but they will have full views into our back yards. There are no trees or bushes high
enough to stop those tenants from looking into our backyards and there is nothing to stop any
potential tenant from infringing on our rights to privacy.
Each household in the Pele Place Development has a different reason to want to protect the
privacy they presently have in their back yards. There are families on the south side of Pele
Place with very young children. Each of these families have swimming pools. Wouldn’t they
also want and deserve to have privacy as their children play and swim in their back yard?
Some neighbors work and return home and simply want to relax in their back yards in private.
We are all in our eighties in our household and have used the residence for our own specific
benefits. My husband has been diagnosed with a muscular disorder. He benefits from walking
and exercising in private in our back yard. My sister has a skin disorder that requires constant
treatment. She uses the back yard to disrobe in privacy near her bedroom where she can
receive the benefits from the sun. She’ll only be able to do this in the privacy of our back yard.
We are finally getting a pool and I’ll be able to use the jacuzzi in the backyard as part of the
therapy for my bad knees. We don’t relish the thought that residents from the new
Item 3B - Page 180
development across the street will be able to watch us as we go through our routine of trying
to live a quiet life in private.
POTENTIAL NUISANCE
I would also suggest that the ability of the tenants to look at will into our backyards
may constitute a nuisance."Nuisance Law and Legal Definition. In legal terminology, a
nuisance is a substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, which may
be intentional, negligent or ultrahazardous in origin, and must be a result of
defendant's activity."
MISCELLANEOUS REASONS
Although the residents on the North side of the Pele Development will still have their
northern mountain views they will feel the impact of the traffic that will result from this
proposed devlopment. Shortly after we purchased the real property in 2010 a lady was
driving north on Portola and ended up in the landscape right behind our backyard on
Frank Sinatra. Luckily we had the brick wall to protect us. The Pele Place Development
was able to claim damages for the landscape she destroyed and the palm tree that she
hit. I am reminded that 1) that the accident and damage to Pele Place will only increase
with the new proposed development and 2) our brick wall won’t protect us from the
glaring views that the tenants will have into our back yards.
Pele Place was in foreclosure in 2009 when we purchased our residence from the bank.
The high interest rates we have today make me also ask that the Palm Desert department
that deals with financing and new construction will make sure that we’re not left next
door to an abandoned project. Cody Dietrich, the developer, says that this is his first
solo project but that he has worked with other developers.
Conclusion
I believe in progress but I also believe that new developers to an area have an obligation to be
considerate of their new neighbors. The Pele Place Development has been completely
overlooked and ignored. Adjustments were made for the residents at the Retreat at Desert
Willow located on Portola Avenue. Some changes were made to the project. I believe the
buildings were changed or moved or lowered to preserve their mountain views to the west. No
other residents except the Pele Place Development residents have been dealt a “double
whammy”. First, Hayes Dietrich, LLC wants to build three 3- story apartment buildings
constructed in a manner that takes away our southern mountain views and second, Hayes
Dietrich, LLC wants to build their three 3-story buildings recklessly giving their tenants open
views into the Pele Place Development residents lives and private backyards.
A simple solution would be to relocate the apartments to another area on the site that wouldn’t
invade the privacy of others and to lower the number of stories in the apartment buildings
from three to two. No where else on Frank Sinatra are there three story apartment building. At
the very least the apartments should be constructed where no tenant(s) are given the ability to
have views into the back yards of any resident especially Pele Place Development residents.
Thanks for your consideration.
Edith Taylor
Item 3B - Page 181
Pele Place Development Resident and President of the Pele Place Development HOA
323-29
Item 3B - Page 182
Susan Yun
2702 Retreat Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
December 6, 2022
Nick Melloni, Senior Planner
City of Palm Desert
Dear Mr. Melloni,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond in writing to the proposed development by Hayes Dietrich,
LLC for a residential 394 unit multifamily development located at the corner of Portola Ave. and Frank
Sinatra Drive, within the Palm Desert community. It appears from the notice that the city is the lead
agency in this project and had already determined that any significant negative impacts can be
successfully mitigated to less than a significant level per your written notice.
As a new resident of the Palm Desert Community and potential neighbor to this new community, I
welcome the opportunity to address my concerns in this letter.
It appears the proposed housing development meets the rather broad dwelling unit standards per
average gross acre (1-40). Is it then safe to assume that the project meets the minimum open common
space, set back codes, increased traffic congestion and height restrictions? We have some concern that
the building height will now impede the mountain views in our condominium complex, which I would
consider an existing infrastructure.
I spent some time reviewing the Palm Desert 2015 Millennium Specific Plan. In addition, the Estonia
Protocol, developed in 2010 gave hope to a 30% reduction in city wide electric and gas consumption. To
quote the Sustainability Plan: Sustainability is the ultimate environmental pursuit. It integrates all
environmental, social even economic issues.”
Design guidelines outlined on Page 29 of the Millennium Specific Plan gave credence to the concepts
that all new project developments incorporate the City’s Sustainability Plan to the greatest extent
possible. “Each phase of development must be self-sustaining in terms of scale, access and amenities.”
These concerns were individually addressed in the Millennium Plan and included: traffic noise, increased
greenhouse gases, increased water use, increased electricity use, increased heat due to concrete and
asphalt for parking as well as "crowding" in the allotted space".
The Palm Desert Action Plan references Palm Desert as a great place to live and needs to be nurtured.
Does the high number of multi-units planned for (13 Buildings and 394 multi-family units) meet the
“Built Environment Ordinance” which refers to using green building concepts in all new construction?
Does the Sustainability Committee participate in review of new housing developments?
Item 3B - Page 183
And outside of economic gain, are all 394 units needed in Palm Desert? I assume this housing project is
NOT deemed “affordable housing”, although I understand there is housing crises in California.
Apartments seem to require more resources for maintained and upkeep.
Palm Desert is approximately 17,290 acres. There are 12 parks in Palm Desert totaling 200 acres. There
are approximately 100 golf courses equaling 16,000 acres, not considered “free “public space.
Therefore, the City offers 1.15% park space to its residents. How does yet another housing development
fit into the city’s strategic plan for sustainable efforts? And are you really offering the community a
chance to make a difference in your City Planning?
I realize that forward thinking to improve communities recreational space, focus on sustainability and
provide Palm Desert residents with a truly progressive infrastructure cause great fiscal impact. I
welcome the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns as we face huge climate impact and
seemingly impossible goals to change our current housing development practices.
Thank you.
Susan Yun
Item 3B - Page 184
\\srv-fil2k19\groups\Planning\Case Files\PP\PP 22-0006 394-units Frank Sinatra and Portola Ave\CC Appeal\394 Appeal - Public Hearing Notice
(1.15.23).docx
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CASE NO. PP/CUP/EA22-0006
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF
THE APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR A 394-UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (PP/CUP/EA
22-0006).
PROJECT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION: The southwest corner of the intersection of Portola Avenue and Frank
Sinatra Drive (APN(s) 694-400-031, and -030).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Don Mess, has filed an appeal related to the approval
of 394 apartment units on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land south of Frank Sinatra Drive
and west of Portola Avenue (PP/CUP/EA 22-0006) in the City of Palm Desert. The project consists
of thirteen (13) three-story residential buildings, a clubhouse, fitness center, community pools,
and open space areas, in addition to paved drive aisles and pathways, landscaping, and
approximately 816 parking spaces.
PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, will hold a Public Hearing at its meeting on January 26, 2023. The City Council meeting
begins at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber located at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, this meeting may be conducted by teleconference.
There will be in-person access to the meeting location. Options for remote participation will be
listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/mayor-
and-city-council-/city-council-meeting-information-center.
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: Information concerning the proposed designation is
available for review in the Office of the City Clerk at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, during regular business hours.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made as follows:
• Written comments may be submitted to the City Council by letter to the address below or
email at CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org. Transmittal prior to the start of
the meeting is required. Any correspondence received during or after the meeting will be
distributed to the City Council as soon as practicable and retained for the official record.
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]).
Si necesita ayuda con esta notificación por favor llame a la Ciudad de Palm Desert y
comuníquese con Gloria Sanchez (760) 346-0611 ext. 354.
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN ANTHONY J. MEJIA, MMC, CITY CLERK
JANUARY 15, 2023 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
Item 3B - Page 185
1,000-FT RADIUSPROJECT SITE(APNS: 620-400-030& 620-400-031)
FRANK SINATRA DR
PORTOLA AVEDESERT GREENS DR EDESERT GREENS DR N DREXELL DRSHEPHERD LNOAK FLATS DR EMERSON DRCOLLEGE DRWOODWARD DR
HEATHERWOOD DR
MERILL DR
DAISY LN
CHAPARROSA WAYDRISCOLL STPELE PL
LUCERNEDR
DESERT
W
IL
LOW
DR
ALPINE LN
INDIAN CREEK WAY COLEBRIDGE STMANZANITA DRTAYLORAVE
FULLER DRAZALEA DRBAUTISTA CANYON WAYHAYSTACK MOUNTAIN DR
ONE HORSE WAYHIDDEN WATER PLCOVINGTONDR
KOKOPELLI CIR KOKOPELLI CIR E
HALFWAY
D
RSTORYCREEK DRCUDYCIRCABIN CIRHOLISTER DRBLUE CIRJUARO CIRWILLINGTONRD
ROCK CIRJAMESON RD
W COLLEGEVIEW CIR
UNIVERSITYPOINTE CT
E COLLEGEVIEW CIR
0 250 500 750 1,000FT
DATE: 6/1/2022 1,000 FT RADIUS MAP
LEGEND
PROJECT SITE (BASIS OF RADIUS)
1,000-FT RADIUS FROM PROJECT SITE
CONDOMINIUMS INTERSECTING RADIUS
PARCELS INTERSECTING RADIUS
DATA SOURCES: RIVERSIDE COUNTY
IT-GIS, USGS, ESRI Item 3B - Page 186
PROJECT LOCATION
Vicinity
Site Location
FRANK SINATRA RD
PORTOLA AVEPROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:38 AMA0
TITLE SHEET
221570
ESG ESG
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE & PORTOLA - LAND USE SUBMITTAL
DRAWING INDEXPROJECT TEAM
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
ARCHITECT:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
LEGAL:
Hayes Dietrich, LLC
5021 Vernon Ave. S, Suite 201
Edina, MN 55436
Contact: Cody Dietrich
Ph: 507-440-5702
Elness Swenson Graham Architects Inc.
500 Washington Ave. South, Suite 1080
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Contact: Christine Pecard
Ph: 612-339-5508
Fx: 612-339-5382
MSA Consulting
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Contact: Mike Rowe
Ph: 760-320-9811
MSA Consulting
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Contact: Mike Rowe
Ph: 760-320-9811
Hayes Dietrich Construction, LLC
5021 Vernon Ave S, Suite 201
Edina, MN 55436
Contact: Calvin Hayes
Phone: 612-202-1934
Nethery/ Mueller/ Olivier, LLP
41-750 Rancho Las Palmas, Bldg. H
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Contact: Daniel E. Oliver
Phone: 760-837-0333
DRAWING INDEX ARC
DRAWING
NUMBER DRAWING NAME
GENERAL INFORMATION
A0 TITLE SHEET
A1 PROJECT METRICS
CIVIL
C1 TECHNICAL SITE PLAN
C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L1 OVERALL TREE PLAN
L2 ENTRY & CORNER ENLARGEMENT
L3 FITNESS AREA ENLARGEMENT
L4 MAIN POOL ENLARGEMENT
L5 PLANT PALETTE-SHRUBS
ARCHITECTURAL
A3 TYPICAL PLANS - BUILDING TYPE A
A4 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE A
A5 COLORED ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE A
A6 TYPICAL PLANS - BUILDING TYPE B
A7 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE B
A8 COLORED ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE B
A9 TYPICAL PLANS - BUILDING TYPE C
A10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE C
A11 COLORED ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE C
A12 TYPICAL PLANS - BUILDING TYPE D
A13 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE D
A13.1 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE D
A14 COLORED ELEVATIONS - RESIDENTIAL TYPE D
A15 LEVEL P1 - MULTIFAMILY BUILDNG
A16 LEVEL 1 - MULTIFAMILY BULDING
A17 LEVEL 2 & 3 - MULTIFAMILY BUILDNG
A18 UNIT PLANS - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
A19 UNIT PLANS - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
A20 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - MULTIFAMILY
A21 COLORED ELEVATIONS - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
A22 COLORED ELEVATIONS - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
A23 ROOF PLAN - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
A24 CLUB HOUSE BUILDING & POOL TERRACE PLAN
A25 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - CLUBHOUSE
A26 COLORED ELEVATIONS - CLUBHOUSE
A27 COLORED ELEVATIONS - CLUBHOUSE
A28 FITNESS BUILDING & TERRACE
DRAWING INDEX ARC
DRAWING
NUMBER DRAWING NAME
A30 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - FITNESS
A31 COLORED ELEVATIONS - FITNESS
A32 SITE SECTIONS
A33 GARAGE, CARPORT, & TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS
A34 SITE SIGNAGE & FENCE SECTION ELEVATIONS
A35 MATERIAL BOARD
A36 VIEW FROM INTERSECTION AT FRANK SINATRA +
PORTOLA
A37 VIEW OF COMPLEX ENTRY FROM PORTOLA AVE
A38 VIEW OF CLUBHOUSE
A39 VIEW OF POOL AT FITNESS CLUBHOUSE
A40 VIEW OF WALK-UP UNITS
A41 VIEW OF ENTRANCE AT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING
A42 VIEW OF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING
A43 VIEW FROM PORTOLA AVE
A44 VIEW FROM FRANK SINATRA
A45 VIEW OF PARK ALONG PORTOLA
A46 VIEW ALONG PORTOLA AVE
A47 VIEW OF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING
A48 STREET VIEW ALONG FRANK SINATRA DR
A49 STREET VIEW ALONG PORTOLA AVE
A50 VIEW OF TRASH ENCLOSURE AND GARAGE
A51 MISC DETAILS
A52 MISC DETAILS
A53 PRELIMINARY CODE & AREA CALCUALTIONS - TYPE A, B
BUILDINGS
A54 PRELIMINARY CODE & AREA CALCULATIONS - TYPE C, D
BUILDINGS
A55 PRELIMINARY CODE & AREA CALCUALTIONS - TYPE E
BUILDING
A56 PRELIMINARY CODE & AREA CALCUALTIONS - TYPE F & G
BUILDINGS
ELECTRICAL
E1 SITE PHOTOMETRICS
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 187
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:38 AMA1
PROJECT METRICS
221570
Author Checker
05/09/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Unit Type Count %BED
Studio 16 4%16
Alcove 19 5%19
1 Bedroom 176 45%176
2 Bedroom 171 43%342
3 Bedroom 12 3%36
Total Units 589394
Building Unit Type Unit Count/Building Total Unit Count Unit Area Total Area
E M1 16 16 620 9,920
E A1 19 19 690 13,110
E B1 15 15 799 11,985
A B2 12 60 824 -
D B2 12 12 824 59,328
E B3 14 14 856 11,984
B B4 12 36 865 31,140
C B5 12 36 863 31,068
E B6 3 3 943 2,829
E C1 13 13 1,233 16,029
C C2 12 36 1,220 43,920
B C3 12 36 1,290 46,440
E C4 6 6 1,405 8,430
E C5 3 3 1,405 4,215
E C6 3 3 1,396 4,188
A C7 12 60 1,385 -
D C7 6 6 1,385 91,410
E C8 5 5 1,427 7,135
D C9 3 3 1,850 5,550
E D2 12 12 1,679 20,148
394 418,829
Residential Building Totals
UNITS
Site Metrics
Area (GSF)Dus/Building Total Parking
# Buildings Level P1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total/Building Total Area Standard Carport Garage Underground
Site 263 256 140
Building A 5
Circulation (Exterior)1,138 1,138 1,138
Residential 8,836 8,836 8,836 24 120
Balcony/Patio (Exterior)750 750 750
10,724 10,724 10,724 32,172 160,860
Building B 3
Circulation (Exterior)1,471 1,471 1,471
Residential 8,620 8,620 8,620 24 72
Balcony/Patio (Exterior)742 742 742
10,833 10,833 10,833 32,499 97,497
Building C 3
Common (Exterior)1,138 1,138 1,138
Residential 8,332 8,332 8,332 24 72
Balcony/Patio (Exterior)830 830 830
10,300 10,300 10,300 30,900 92,700
Building D 1
Circulation (Exterior)1,138 1,138 1,138
Residential 7,917 7,917 7,917 21 21
Balcony/Patio (Exterior)750 750 750
9,805 9,805 9,805 29,415 29,415
Building E (Multifamily)1
Common Circulation 2,931 8,247 5,937 5,937
Residential 33,125 38,424 38,424 109 109
Amenity 407 2,989
Parking 55,507 157
Total (Interior)58,845 44,361 44,361 44,361 191,928 191,928
Balcony/Patio (Exterior)3,302 3,302 3,302
Building F (Clubhouse)1 17,311
17,311 17,311
Building G (Fitness)1 2,553 2,049
4,602 4,602
15 594,313 394 816
2.07
Total Stalls
Parking Ratio
Item 3B - Page 188
NOPARKINGNO
PARKING
NO
PARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE PROP. BUILDING 1TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)EX. C/L PROP. BUILDING 2TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 3TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 4TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 5TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 6TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 7TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 8TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 9TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 10TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 11TYPE "D"9,819 SF (1ST FLOOR)9,819 SF (2ND FLOOR)9,819 SF (3RD FLOOR)29,457 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 12TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 13TYPE "E"44,361 SF (1ST FLOOR)44,361 SF (2ND FLOOR)44,361 SF (3RD FLOOR)133,083 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 14LEASING / CLUBHOUSE17,311 SFPROP.BUILDING 15FITNESS2,553 SF (1ST FLR)2,049 SF (2ND FLR)4,602 SF (TOTAL)32.8'43.7'45.1'42.8'31.4'33.2'34.5'
17.8'20.5'30.5'20.5'16.2'18'30'18'PoolSpaYogaLawnPool2
1
.
8
'
1
8
'
3
2
'
EX. CURB & GUTTER
11.5'
22.8'
63'
20'
32.6'
46.3'
10.9'18'
13.9'55.6'309.6'17'20.5'74.1'14.9'20.5'45.1
'23.6'30.6'24'10'24'29.1'PRO
P
.
E
N
T
R
Y
KIOS
K
16'18'30.5'20.5'EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)30'30'
18'20.4'18'30'20.5'26.9'23'
23'
20'
26'20.5'26.4'18'
30'
18'
22.8
'
24'EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)PROP. SIGNAGEPROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)29'29'PORTOLA AVENUEN 27°46'33" E 840.48'N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'N 89°52'08" E 686.08'N 04°19'04" E 58.45'=23°27'29" R=1937.00' L=793.05'=11°29'14" R=1863.00' L=373.51'75'117.2'
59.4'21.6'21.6'21.6'18'23.1'
9'
TYP.
18'
29.4'
30'
20.5'
39.8'68.1'19.5'20.5'30'20.5'21.9'22'18'18'21.4'15.2'
18'
30'81.2'60.3'20.5'10'PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)10'PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)10'EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGEDWITH FINAL DESIGN PLANSPROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADEUP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE &TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLYLOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTIONAND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL18'24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATIONOF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADEDFIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL20.5'30.5'20.5'
117.5'38.9'144.2'30'17'
15'
18'
30'
18'
6'
18'
30'
18'62.5'PROP. GENERAL EGRESS ACCESS ONLY.GATES WILL NOT SWING INTO EGRESS(TYP.)PROP. GENERAL EGRESS ACCESS ONLY.GATES WILL NOT SWINGINTO EGRESS (TYP.)
13.9'
13.5'
13.6'
13.7
'
13.7
'
13.9
'
13.9'14.1'EX. CURB &GUTTER (TYP.)EX. CURB &GUTTER (TYP.)EX. CURB &GUTTER (TYP.)PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)PROP. GARAGE (TYP.)PROP. GARAGE (TYP.)PROP. GARAGE (TYP.)PROP. CARPORT (TYP.)PROP. CARPORT (TYP.)PROP. CARPORT (TYP.)PROP. CARPORT (TYP.)PROP.CARPORT (TYP.)PROP.CARPORT (TYP.)32'17.8'PROP.GARAGE(TYP.)N 47°57'11" W29.27'Putting GreenMSA CONSULTING, INC.Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape ArchitecturePlanning Environmental Services Dry Utility Coordination GIS34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultingincEASTNORTHSOUTHWESTCENTERLINEEASEMENTEXISTING(E)(N)(S)(W)C/LESMT.EX.ABBREVIATIONSACREAGEACCURB AND GUTTERC&GASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERAPNE/P EDGE OF PAVEMENTA.C. ASPHALT CONCRETEMAX. MAXIMUMBOUNDARYBNDRYM.B. MAP BOOKEXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONEEXISTING SEWEREXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED CURBPROPOSED EASEMENTEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYEXISTING SEWER FORCE MAINEXISTING WATERPROPOSED LOT LINEPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARYEXISTING IRRIGATIONEXISTING GASEXISTING EASEMENTEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINEEXISTING CABLEEXISTING CONTOURSEXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSLEGENDEXISTING LOT LINEEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING TELEPHONEMIN. MINIMUMNUMBERPROPOSEDRIGHT OF WAYTYPICALNO.PROP.R/WTYP.P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTSF SQUARE FEETRADIUSRSTANDARDSTD.P/L PROPERTY LINEN.T.S. NOT TO SCALER-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL)UG UNDERGROUNDOVERHEADO/HOPEN SPACE / PARKSOS/PPPAGEPG.PROPOSED PARKING STALLSXCUP SITE PLANDATA TABLEASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:620-400-030 & -031EXHIBIT DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2022SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:ADDRESS:INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:DECEMBER 22, 2021EXHIBIT PREPARER:ADDRESS:MSA CONSULTING, INC.34200 BOB HOPE DRIVERANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICPTELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811REVISIONSNO. DATEIN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIALEGAL DESCRIPTION:DESCRIPTIONA PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST,SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN.TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252APPLICANT /ADDRESS:CONTACT:5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436CALVIN HAYESHAYES DIETRICH, LLCLAND OWNER:EXISTING GROSS ACREAGELAND USE DESCRIPTION:AMENITY LANDSCAPE AREAS0.96 AC.41,666 SF5%TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA)4.40 AC.191,203 SF24%8.41 AC.366,248 SF47%GARAGES, ACCESS ROADS, HARDSCAPE & PARKING18.31 AC.ACREAGE797,567 SFSF-PERCENTAGE- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (5, 7-9 & 12)- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (4, 6 & 10)53,760 SF32,499 SF1.23 AC.0.75 AC.--DATA TABLE (CONTINUED)EXISTING ZONING:PROPOSED ZONING:EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22)PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22)TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODTOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODBUILDING DESCRIPTION:STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11)3 STORYPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION0.16 AC.6,756 SF-(FRANK SINATRA DRIVE)PROPOSED NET ACREAGE18.15 AC.790,811 SF100%PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "A"SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED659 STALLS240 STALLSONSITE PARKING DATA:COUNTPARKING RATIOUNITS / SF120 UNITS---(BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12)TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED394 UNITS-788 STALLSPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "B"(BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "C"(BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "D"(BUILDING NO. 11)72 UNITS -72 UNITS -21 UNITS -144 STALLS144 STALLS42 STALLSDATA TABLE (CONTINUED)RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13)LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 14)1 STORY3 STORYFITNESS BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 15)2 STORY- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (1-3) 30,900 SF 0.71 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (11) 9,819 SF 0.23 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (13)44,361 SF 1.02 AC. -- PROPOSED LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (14) 17,311 SF 0.40 AC. -- PROPOSED FITNESS BUILDING (15)2,553 SF 0.06 AC. -UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED157 STALLS--SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED816 STALLS-2.07 STALLS PER UNITPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "E"(BUILDING NO. 13)109 UNITS -218 STALLSPUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS:ZONE "X": AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAINFEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:LIQUEFACTION:MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONENOTES:1.ELECTRIC:GAS:TELEPHONE:WATER:CABLE:SEWER:USA:THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ONTHIS PROPERTY.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYFRONTIER COMMUNICATIONSCOACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTSPECTRUMCOACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTUNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT(800) 684-8123(877) 238-0092(800) 921-8101(760) 398-2651(877) 719-3278(760) 398-2651(800) 227-2600SCHOOL DISTRICT:DESERT SANDS UNIFIEDAS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS,COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER: 06065C1595GEFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008DATA TABLE (CONTINUED)TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED-2.07 STALLS PER UNIT 816 STALLSFRANK SINATRA & PORTOLAPROJECT NAME:LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE & RETENTION AREAS4.38 AC.191,694 SF24%R:\2746\Acad\Planning\Site Plan\2746 Technical Site Plan with Additional Parking.dwg, 10/3/2022 10:51:48 AM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc.Item 3B - Page 189
NOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGMH
MH
MHMH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
AHEADAHEADAHEADAHEADAHEAD
SIGNALSIGNAL
SIGNALSIGNALSIGNALSP
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
STOPSTOP
STOPSP
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
265
265
265265
265270270
270
270
270
270
270
270
275
275275
275
275
275 275275275275275
275
280
280280 280280280
280
280
280
280
280280280255266.6274.1276.9277.4275.7276.3277.1280.5280.1279.3279.8279.5279.9280.2278.7278.4278.7278.6279.3276.6276.3275.7275.2277.4276.4274.9274.6274.2274.2273.6273.6273.1273.4272.7280.5279.5279.4280.2280.3279.7279.2278.8278.5278.3277.9279.7279.2279.6281.3281.2280.3280.2280.2280.5280.4280.6281.2281.2279.3284.2277.6278.6277.1280.2275.9277.9278.7279.2278.6278.2277.5278.3279.9279.6278.5276.4277.1277.2276.9276.9276.6276.6276.3277.0277.1275.2275.6274.4274.7274.5273.7273.3274.3275.6273.7273.5276.1276.4276.3274.4275.2274.5272.1273.7274.6273.1272.8273.4273.5273.7273.5272.5272.4272.3273.1272.7272.2273.2271.8272.3271.3271.9278.2272.7274.5272.6272.7272.5272.4271.4271.4270.4270.4269.3269.5268.4268.4270.8270.4269.9269.3268.8269.6269.2267.6267.6267.4270.3272.3272.5272.4269.4270.7268.7267.5268.1269.1269.5266.7266.6267.4267.2265.4265.8266.1265.5264.7266.5266.1264.6263.6263.7262.4269.7270.5273.3278.1277.8280.2280.2M
PROP. BUILDING NO. 6FF = 276.3PE = 275.8
Prop. Trash Enclosure to IncludeRecycle & Organic Waste (Typ.)
Prop. Trash Enclosureto Include Recycle &Organic Waste (Typ.)
Ex. Curb & Gutter(Typ.)
8' Meandering SidewalkPer Landscape Plan
Prop. Trash Enclosureto Include Recycle &Organic Waste (Typ.)
Prop. Trash Enclosureto Include Recycle &Organic Waste (Typ.)
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 5FF = 277.3PE = 276.8
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 4FF = 278.6PE = 278.1
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 3FF = 278.0PE = 277.5
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 2FF = 278.6PE = 278.1
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 1FF = 279.5PE = 279.0
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 13FF = 280.2PE = 279.7GFF = 269.2
PROP. BUILDING NO. 12FF = 277.0PE = 276.5
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 7FF = 276.0PE = 275.5
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 8FF = 275.4PE = 274.9
PROP.BUILDINGNO. 15FF = 276.1PE = 275.6
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 14FF = 278.0PE = 277.5
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 9FF = 272.9PE = 272.4
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 11FF = 273.5PE = 273.0
PROP. BUILDINGNO. 10FF = 272.0PE = 271.5
10'Prop. 10' LandscapeSetback
10'Prop. 10' LandscapeSetback
Prop. 10'LandscapeSetback10'270.0BOTTOM
Prop. R/W Expansion8' Meandering SIdewalk PerLandscape PlanEx. Curb & GutterFRANK SINATRA DRIVEPORTO
L
A
A
V
E
N
U
E63'Move Ex. CatchBasin to end ofcurb return
275'
Re
m
o
v
e
E
x
.
M
e
d
i
a
n
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
(
I
n
O
n
l
y
)
P
o
c
k
e
t
35'
279.5TC
278.9TC
279.3TC
278.7TC
277.1TC
277.0TC
277.8TC
277.6TC 277.7TC
277.9TC277.9TC 279.7TC 278.8TC 276.0TC
279.0TC
279.5TC
279.7TC
279.5TC
279.3TC
278.7TC
278.6TC
277.9TC
278.2TC
278.3TC
277.5TC 277.8TC
277.5TC
277.3TC
277.8TC
277.6TC
278.1TC
278.3TC
277.2TC
276.5TC
276.3TC
275.7TC
278.0TC
275.2TC
275.0TC
275.9TC
274.5TC
274.8TC
271.7TC
272.0TC
274.6TC
274.4TC
276.0TC
276.4TC276.4TC277.3TC
277.3TC
277.3TC
276.8 TC2763. FL
276.5 TC276.0 FLJOIN EX.
276.2 TC275.7 FLJOIN EX.
276.8 TC276.3 FL
275.5TC/LP
275.0TC/HP
271.0 TC270.5 FLJOIN EX.
270.3FL
269.9FL
270.2 TC269.7 FLJOIN EX.
277.0TC
277.0FL
273.9TC
273.2FL
273.6TC
272.8TC
272.5TC
271.8TC
271.0TC/LP
271.2TC
271.7TC271.5TC
272.0TC
271.2TC
271.8TC
270.2TC
270.4TC
270.0TC
272.0TC
272.7TC
273.8TC
273.2TC
273.0TC
273.8TC
274.2TC
274.1TC
270.6TC
274.1TC
271.5TC
271.5TC
272.8TC
274.9TC
274.7TC
275.5TC
275.7TC
276.1TC
275.5TC
275.7TC
275.7TC
275.3TC
275.6COPING
278.5RIDGE
276.5COPING
279.7TC
278.9TC
277.0FG
279.0TC
279.7TC 279.5TC
280.0TC
278.8TC 278.6TC
278.5TC
277.9TC277.7FL
276.0FG
276.0FG
277.0FG
277.0
277.0FG277.9FG
275.0FG
277.1TC 277.3TC
276.6FS
277.5TC
277.3TC
276.5FS276.2TC
276.0TC
276.2TC
276.8TC
276.6TC276.4TC
276.6TC
276.7TC
276.5TC
278.3TC
278.1TC
278.4TC
278.2TC
279.9TC
279.7TC
279.7TC
279.5TC
276.3TC
276.5TC
279.5TC
279.2TC
279.1TC
272.4TC
271.7TC
271.1TC
274.7TC
272.1TC
271.9TC
273.8TC
273.4TC
272.7FS
273.1FS
271.5TC
270.8FS
270.8FL
275.5FG
273.8FG275.0FG
277.7FG
275.0FG
273.0FG
273.0FG
Prop. Property Fence per Landscape &Architecture Plans (Typ.)Prop. Property Fence per Landscape &Architecture Plans (Typ.)
Ridg
eRidge Prop. UndergroundRetention Basin (7'x80')
8' Meandering SidewalkPer Landscape Plan 20.5'34.25'
POOL
APN: 620-170-009
38105 PORTOLA AVEPALM DESERT CA 92260
APN: 620-400-029
38400
APN: 620-400-033
-
APN: 620-400-010
-
APN: 620-400-005
-
APN: 620-472-060
-
APN: 620-472-065
-40.727'Prop. 10'LandscapeSetback10'0.6%0.4%275.0TC/HP
5.2%5.1%70'
REM
O
V
E
E
X
I
S
T
M
E
D
I
A
N
T
O
CREA
T
E
L
E
F
T
T
U
R
N
P
O
C
K
E
T
REMOVE EXIST CURB&GUTTER TO CREATEENTRY CROSS GUTTER
PARCEL 2620-400-030VACANTEX. GENERAL PLAN:TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODEX. ZONING:PLANNED UNIT RESIDENTIAL(P.R.-22)
32.8'
43.7'
45.1'
42.8'
31.4'33.2'34.5'17.8'20.5'30.5'20.5'16.2'18'30'18'21.8'18'32'11.5'22.8'63'20'32.6'46.3'10.9'18'13.9'55.6'309.6'17'20.5'74.1'14.9'20.5'45.1'23
.6
'
30.6'
24'
10'
24'
29.1'16'18'30.5'20.5'30'30'18'20.4'
18'
30'
20.5'
26.9'23'23'20'26'20.5
'
26.4'18'30'18'22.8'24'29'
29'
PARCEL 1620-400-031VACANTEX. GENERAL PLAN:TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODEX. ZONING:PLANNED UNIT RESIDENTIAL(P.R.-22)
N 27
°
4
6
'
3
3
"
E
8
4
0
.
4
8
'
N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'N 89°52'08" E 686.08'N 04°19'04" E 58.45'
∆=23°27'29"R=1937.00'L=793.05'
∆=11°29'14"R=1863.00'L=373.51'
75'117.2'59.4'21.6'
21.6'
21.6'18'23.1'9'TYP.18'29.4'30'20.5'39.8'68.1'
19.5'
20.5
'
30'
20.5'
21.9
'
22'
18'
18'
21.4'15.2'18'30'81.2'60.3'20.5'10'10'10'POR
T
O
L
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
18'20.5'30.5'20.5'117.5'38.9'144.2'30'17'15'18'30'18'6'18'30'18'62.5'13.9'13.5'13.6'13.7'13.7'13.9'13.9'14.1'32'
17.8'
N 47°57'11" W29.27'
Prop. 8'Sidewalk 80'REMOVE EXIST CURB&GUTTER TO CREATEENTRY CROSS GUTTERREMOVE EXIST CURB&GUTTER TO CREATEENTRY CROSS GUTTER
80'
276.2TC
Prop. UndergroundRetention Basin (5 - 5'x100')
Prop. Underground RetentionBasin (2,350 LF OF 5')
Pro
p
.
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
Ret
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
(
8
'
x
1
4
0
'
)
Pro
p
.
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
Ret
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
(
8
'
x
1
4
0
'
)
270.2
TC
269.7
TC
269.5
TC/LP 271.0
TC
271.0
TC
270.8
TC
271.3
TC270.4
TC
270.4
TC/LP
272.7
TC/LP
271.7
TC/LP
273.4
TC/LP
273.3
TC/LP
273.0
TC/LP
273.4
TC/LP
273.5
TC
273.7
TC
273.2
TC 276.7
TC
270.1FL
270.9
TC
270.5
TC
270.9
TC
EX. POWER POLE TOBE RELOCATED270.0
TC/LP
274.3
TC
273.7
TC
273.1
TC
272.9
TC
272.8
TC
271.8
TC
272.0
TC
272.6
TC 273.3
TC/LP
272.5
TC
273.3
TC
(273.7)
EX. TC
(274.3)
EX. TCEX. POWER POLE AND GUY WIRETO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE(273.0)
EX. TC
(272.5)
EX. TC
(271.7)
EX. TC
(269.7)
EX. TC
(268.6)
EX. TC
(266.4)
EX. TC
(265.1)
EX. TC
(262.4)
EX. TC
(274.7)
EX. TC
(275.5)
EX. TC
(276.0)
EX. TC
PE 269.51600 RETREAT CIRCLEPALM DESERTCA 92211
PE 269.22800 RETREAT CIRCLEPALM DESERTCA 92211
PE 271.31700 RETREAT CIRCLEPALM DESERTCA 92211
PE 271.91800 RETREAT CIRCLEPALM DESERTCA 92211
PE 274.51900 RETREAT CIRCLEPALM DESERTCA 92211
PUTTINGGREEN
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH
MHSTOP
275 275280280279.7
279.7
276.7
275.8276.2276.5 275.5 275.1 274.2274.6274.9
273.7
APN: 694391014
74085 DAISY LNPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694391015
74091 DAISY LNPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392014
74109 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392013
74123 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392012
74137 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392011
74151 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392010
74165 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392009
74179 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
APN: 694392008
74193 PELE PLPALM DESERTCA 92211
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
0'100'
SCALE 1"=50'
50'150'200'
MSA CONSULTING,INC.
C i v il E n g i n e e r i n g L a n d S u r v e y i n g L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r ePlanningEnvironmentalServicesDryUtilityCoordinationGIS
34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com Copyright 2022
All Rights ReservedMSA Consulting, Inc.c
EAST
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT
EXISTING
(E)
(N)
(S)
(W)
C/L
ESMT.
EX.
ABBREVIATIONS
ACREAGEAC
CURB AND GUTTERC&G
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERAPN
E/P EDGE OF PAVEMENT
A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE
MAX. MAXIMUM
BOUNDARYBNDRY
M.B. MAP BOOK
EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE
EXISTING SEWER
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED CURB
PROPOSED EASEMENT
EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING SEWER FORCE MAIN
EXISTING WATER
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINE
PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING IRRIGATION
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING EASEMENT
EXISTING ELECTRIC
EXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINE
EXISTING CABLE
EXISTING CONTOURS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS
LEGEND
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXISTING TELEPHONE MIN. MINIMUM
NUMBER
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
TYPICAL
NO.
PROP.
R/W
TYP.
P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
SF SQUARE FEET
RADIUSR
STANDARDSTD.
P/L PROPERTY LINE
N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE
R-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL)
UG UNDERGROUND
OVERHEADO/H
OPEN SPACE / PARKSOS/PP
PAGEPG.
DATA TABLE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:620-400-030 & -031
EXHIBIT DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2022
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
ADDRESS:
INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.
7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:DECEMBER 22, 2021
EXHIBIT PREPARER:
ADDRESS:
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 BOB HOPE DRIVERANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811
REVISIONS
NO. DATE
IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST,SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN.
TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252
APPLICANT /
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436
CALVIN HAYES
HAYES DIETRICH, LLCLAND OWNER:
%%UESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
RAW QUANTITIES
SUBSIDENCE 3,326 1,333
RAW ADJUSTED 46,113 8,584
SHRINKAGE 1,515
EXPORT
TOTAL EARTHWORK %%O169,998 %%O169,998
SUBTOTAL 71,223 39,639
OVER-EX (PADS)21,806 21,806
OVER-EX (PADS) SHRINKAGE 3,848
49,439 7,251
CUT (CY)FILL (CY)
130,359
{EARTHWORK NOTE: ASSUMED EARTHWORK ANALYSIS FACTORS:}{THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WERE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE EARTHWORK ANALYSIS:SHRINKAGE:. 15%SUBSIDENCE: 0.15'OVEREXCAVATION 3'DISTURBED AREA 18 ACRES
ALL OF THE FACTORS WERE OBTAINED FROM SLADDEN ENGINEERING, PROJECT No. 544-22072, DATED MAY 17, 2022.
SHRINKAGE: 10% - 20%SUBSIDENCE: 0.1' - 0.20'OVER EXCAVATION 3.0'
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY WAS PROVIDED BY INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC., DATED DECEMBER 22, 2021.}
{EATHWORK NOTE:}{THE EXPORT SHOWN (45,437 C.Y.) ON THE PLAN, WILL BE EXPORTEDTO THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY (ADJOINTING PROPERTY) TO THEWEST. THAT PROPERTY IS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. }
OVER-EX (STREETS)3,304 3,304
OVER-EX (STREETS) SHRINKAGE 583
PRELIMINARY
GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
PROPOSED PERIMETER FENCE &
WALL COMBINATION. SEE
ARCHITECT PLAN FOR DETAILS
{PROJECT DATA}
{GROSS ACREAGE 18.31 AC. NETACREAGE 18.15 AC.}
SITE
RAMON RD
DINAH SHORE DR
GERALD FORD DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
FRED WARING DR
HWY 111
HOVLEY LN
BOB HOPE DRMONTEREY AVEPORTOLA AVEEL DORADO DROASIS CLUB DRINT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
1
0
COOK STN.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION
UNDERGROUND RETENTION SYSTEM 98,775
PE 277.5100 RETREAT CIRCLEPALM DESERTCA 92211
R:\2746\Acad\Grading. reliminary\2746 Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg, 10/3/2022 9:25:05 AM, lcantabrana, MSA Consulting, Inc.
Item 3B - Page 190
NOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGMSA CONSULTING, INC.
Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape ArchitecturePlanning Environmental Services Dry Utility Coordination GIS
34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com
&R:\2746\Acad\Improvement Plans\Preliminary Water and Sewer\2746 Preliminary Utility Exhibit.dwg, 10/3/2022 9:33:29 AM, lcantabrana, MSA Consulting, Inc.Item 3B - Page 191
L-1-1
Overall Tree PlanFrank Sinatra & Portola |
October 18, 2022
Port
o
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e Frank Sinatra DriveResidential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type A Type A
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type A Type A
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type A Type A
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type D Type D
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type A Type A
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type A Type A
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type A Type A
Leasing/ Club-Leasing/ Club-
house Building house Building
Type FType F
Fitness Building Fitness Building
Type GType G
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type B Type B
Residential Residential
BuildingBuilding
Type B Type B
BuildingBuilding
Type C Type C
BuildingBuilding
Type C Type C
BuildingBuilding
Type C Type C
BuildingBuilding
Type E Type E2
7
3
8
4
5
5
5
1
1
6
10
10
Trees:
Acacia aneura Prosopis x Phoenix Acacia salincina Parkinsonia x
‘Desert Museum’
Washingtonia
fi lifera Phoenix
dactylifera
12
Key Notes:
Pool
BBQ
Putting Green
Alternate Proof of Parking
Retaining Area / Lawn
2
3
4
5
1
6
Yoga Lawn Alternate Proof of Parking
Interlocking Concrete Paver
7
8
9
Alternate Proof of Parking
Property Wall & Fence Combination 10
Property Wall (solid)11
Dog park12
11
11
11
4’ Ht CMU plaster block wall (color TBD)
with 2’ Painted Metal picket fence view
panels on top and CMU plaster pilasters at
30’ on center.
6’ Ht picket fence panels with planting
along the base at select locations along
perimeter wall and as indicated on plans
Property Wall & Fence Combination
9
30’
Qty: +/- 80 Qty: 50 Qty: +/- 80 Qty: 100 Qty: 40 Qty: 23
Note: Trees to be planted in
various size boxes between
24” & 48”. Some of
the larger boxed trees to
be utilized along perimeter
planting areas (inside &
outside project boundary
wall) to assist with perimeter
screening.
Item 3B - Page 192
Entry & Corner Frank Sinatra & Portola |
October 18, 2022
Key Notes:
Automatic Entry/Exit Gates
Secured Man-Gate
Entry Keypad Kiosk
Stone Wall Monumentation
Entry and corner intersection
Project Monument Icon
at Roundabout
Interlocking Concrete Paver
2
3
4
5
6
1
Character Imagery
Key Map
Porto
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e Frank Sinatra DriveL-2-1
Screened Utility Boxes 7
Portola Avenue
Main Entry
2
3
4
5
1
6
4
Raised Planter
Monument Sign
Public Sidewalk
Property Wall & Fence
Combination
9
8
Portola Avenue FRANK SINATRA DRIVE 10
11
6
9
8
10
11
4
4
Item 3B - Page 193
Fitness Club Area &
Utility ScreeningFrank Sinatra & Portola |
October 18, 2022
Yoga Lawn
Cabanas
Firepit with Tumbled Glass
Walking Track
Putting Green / Water Retention Basin
2
3
4
5
6
Character Imagery
2 1
4
Key Map
Porto
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e Frank Sinatra DriveL-3
Typical Utility ScreeningFitness Club area
Screened Utility Boxes
7
7
5
Key Notes:
Fitness Pool1
2
3
4
5
1
6
7
Item 3B - Page 194
Main Pool
L-5
Frank Sinatra & Portola |
October 18, 2022
Key Notes:
Main Swimming Pool Seating Area
Daybed FurnishingJacuzzi / Spa
Cabanas
Fireplace & Seating Area
Covered BBQ & Counter
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
6
7
7
6
Character Imagery
6
4
3
Key Map
Porto
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e Frank Sinatra Drive7
Item 3B - Page 195
L-6
Frank Sinatra & Portola |
October 18, 2022
Plant Palette - Shrubs
Agave americana
Hesperaloe parvifl ora ‘Yel-
low’
Lantana ‘New Gold’
Tecoma x ‘Orange Jubilee’
Agave desmettiana
Pedilanthus bracteatus
Lantana montevidensis
‘White’
Tecoma x ‘Solar Flare’
Agave weberi
Lophocereus marginatus
Eremophila hygrophana
Tecoma x ‘Gold Star’
Aloe barbadensis Hesperaloe tenufolia
Polygaloides paucifolia
Elaeocarpus decipiens
Asclepias subulata
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Leucophyllum candidum
Dasylirion wheeleri
Acacia redolens
Russelia x St Elmo’s Fire
Dalea greggii
Senna artemisiodes
Fouquieria splendens
Eremophila mingenew
Senna phyllodinea
Hesperaloe parvifl ora
Lantana montevidensis
Simmodsia chinensis
Mojave gold
Decomposed granite
Copper canyon
3/4” gravel
Item 3B - Page 196
UNIT B2UNIT B2
UNIT B2 UNIT B2
UNIT C7
UNIT C7UNIT C7
UNIT C7 ELEC.UTILITY136' - 1"85' - 1"28' - 10"3' - 1"21' - 3"3' - 1"28' - 10"3' - 4"8' - 2"13' - 7"6' - 3"18' - 2"7' - 9"21' - 5"28' - 10"21' - 5"7' - 9"18' - 2"6' - 3"3' - 8"10' - 9"LEVEL 1 PATIO
LOW WALL TYP.
2' - 6"
ROOF ACCESS
ROOF TOP
MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY ROOF
PARAPET TYP.
INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL
FUTURE SOLAR TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
ROOF HEIGHT 32'-0" TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
TYP.
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
TRELLIS TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
13' -6" x 19' -6"
LIVING / DINING
12' -6" x 12' -2"
KITCHEN
11' -0" x 10' -10"
BEDROOM
5' -6" x 9' -3"
BATH
9' -7" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
WATER HEATER
18' -8" x 15' -8"
LIVING / DINING 12' -0" x 13' -2"
BEDROOM
12' -0" x 9' -2"
BATH
8' -7" x 8' -3"
BATH
10' -9" x 12' -8"
BEDROOM
15' -9" x 12' -10"
KITCHEN
15' -2" x 8' -0"
BALCONY
15' -2" x 8' -0"
BALCONY
WATER HEATER
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:40 AMA3
TYPICAL PLANS -
BUILDING TYPE A
221570
Author Checker
05/03/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1" = 10'-0"A3
1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 - WALK-UP A (LEVELS 2 &3 SIM)
1" = 10'-0"A3
2 ROOF PLAN - WALK-UP A
UNIT PLAN - B2 - 824 SF
UNIT PLAN - C7 - 1,385 SF
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 197
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY ROOF PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF DECK
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY ROOF PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF DECK
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"+/- 5' - 0"ROOF PARAPET TO
SCREEN MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TYP.
ROOF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
SCREENING CONDITION APPLIES TO ALL WALK UP UNITS
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:41 AMA4
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING
TYPE A
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
BUILDING TYPE A ELEVATION - (FRONT / BACK)
BUIDING TYPE A ELEVATION - (SIDES)
1/4" = 1'-0"A4
3 PARAPET SCREENING SECTION - WALK UP
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 198
A B CDEFG
AB
C
DEG
AB CDEFG
A BC DEG
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
EDSTUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM DOVE WHITE
BA PAINTED METAL TRELLIS
COLOR: BRONZECSTUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
STUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
SW FOLKSTONE
F METAL PANEL
COLOR: BRONZE G WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZE
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:43 AMA5
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
BUILDING TYPE A
221570
Author Checker
05/04/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING A - COLORED NORTH ELEVAITON
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING A - COLORED EAST ELEVATION
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING A - COLORED SOUTH ELEVATION RESIDENTIAL BUILDING A - COLORED WEST ELEVATION
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 199
128' - 7"
UNIT B4
UNIT B4UNIT B4
UNIT B4
UNIT C3
UNIT C3UNIT C3
UNIT C3 ELEC.UTILITY30' - 3"27' - 6"13' - 1"27' - 6"6' - 10"18' - 11"4' - 6"8' - 2"29' - 7"2' - 10"20' - 3"2' - 10"29' - 7"8' - 2"101' - 5"2' - 10"
1' - 10"5' - 6"8' - 2"5' - 10"ROOF ACCESS
ROOF TOP
MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY HIP
ROOF PARAPET TYP.
INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL
FUTURE SOLAR
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
20' -2" x 12' -7"
LIVING / DINING
10' -2" x 13' -1"
BEDROOM
10' -2" x 13' -1"
BEDROOM
10' -0" x 14' -8"
KITCHEN
6' -2" x 14' -1"
BATH
12' -0" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
WATER HEATER
16' -0" x 8' -0"
BALCONY
17' -0" x 17' -9"
LIVING / DINING
11' -10" x 14' -5"
BEDROOM
8' -3" x 8' -9"
BATH
8' -10" x 8' -8"
BATH
11' -9" x 11' -11"
BEDROOM
12' -7" x 11' -5"
KITCHEN
WATER HEATER
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:47 AMA6
TYPICAL PLANS -
BUILDING TYPE B
221570
Author Checker
05/03/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1" = 10'-0"A6
1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 - WALK-UP B (LEVELS 2&3 SIM)
1" = 10'-0"A6
2 ROOF PLAN - WALK-UP B
UNIT PLAN - B4 - 865 SF
UNIT PLAN - C3 - 1,290 SF
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 200
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY ROOF PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY ROOF PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 35'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:47 AMA7
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING
TYPE B
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
BUILDING TYPE B ELEVATION - (FRONT / BACK)
BUILDING TYPE B ELEVATION - (SIDES)
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 201
A BC DEG
A B DECG
A BC DEG
A BC DEG
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
EDSTUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM DOVE WHITE
BA PAINTED METAL TRELLIS
COLOR: BRONZECSTUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
STUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
SW FOLKSTONE
F METAL PANEL
COLOR: BRONZE G WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZE
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:49 AMA8
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
BUILDING TYPE B
221570
Author Checker
05/04/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING B - COLORED NORTH ELEVATION
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING B - COLORED WEST ELEVATION
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING B - COLORED EAST ELEVATION
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING B - COLORED SOUTH ELEVATION
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 202
UNIT B5
UNIT B5UNIT B5
UNIT B5
UNIT C2
UNIT C2
UNIT C2
UNIT C2
UTILITYELEC.144' - 9"
8' - 1"16' - 7"10' - 7"22' - 1"11' - 1"7' - 11"11' - 1"22' - 1"11' - 4"15' - 10"8' - 1"8' - 1"23' - 8"9' - 0"3' - 11"9' - 0"23' - 8"8' - 5"85' - 10"3' - 5"
2' - 0"8' - 1"5' - 9"12' - 2"ROOF ACCESS
ROOF TOP
MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY HIP
ROOF PARAPET TYP.
INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL
FUTURE SOLAR
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
TRELLIS
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
22' -6" x 10' -6"
LIVING / DINING
9' -6" x 6' -3"
BATH
11' -5" x 10' -6"
BEDROOM
6' -5" x 11' -7"
BATH
11' -3" x 10' -7"
BEDROOM
14' -2" x 12' -0"
KITCHEN
14' -11" x 10' -5"
BALCONY
WATER HEATER
13' -10" x 10' -1"
BALCONY
14' -2" x 19' -5"
LIVING / DINING
11' -6" x 10' -10"
BEDROOM
5' -6" x 9' -4"
BATH
13' -1" x 11' -3"
KITCHEN
WATER HEATER
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:54 AMA9
TYPICAL PLANS -
BUILDING TYPE C
221570
Author Checker
05/03/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1" = 10'-0"A9
1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 - WALK-UP C (LEVELS 2&3 SIM)
1" = 10'-0"A9
2 ROOF PLAN - WALK-UP C
UNIT PLAN - C2 - 1,220 SF
UNIT PLAN - B5 - 863 SF
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 203
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY ROOF PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY ROOF PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"+/- 37' - 0"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:55 AMA10
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING
TYPE C
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
BUILDING TYPE C ELEVATIONS - (FRONT / BACK)
BUILDING TYPE C ELEVATIONS - (SIDES)
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 204
AB CDEGABCDEFG
AB CDEFG ABCDE G
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
EDSTUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM DOVE WHITE
BA PAINTED METAL TRELLIS
COLOR: BRONZECSTUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
STUCCO
MEDIUM SAND FINISH
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
SW FOLKSTONE
F METAL PANEL
COLOR: BRONZE G WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZE
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:56 AMA11
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
BUILDING TYPE C
221570
Author Checker
04/07/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C - COLORED EAST ELEVATION
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C - COLORED NORTH ELEVATION
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C - COLORED SOUTH ELEVATION RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C - COLORED WEST ELEVATION
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 205
UNIT B2
UNIT B2UNIT B2
UNIT B2
UNIT C7
UNIT C7
UNIT C9 ELEC.ELEC.143' - 1"
7' - 9"17' - 1"7' - 4"21' - 1"29' - 6"21' - 1"11' - 2"4' - 6"16' - 10"4' - 0"35' - 4"21' - 10"14' - 8"11' - 10"6' - 9"
4' - 0"11' - 10"7' - 4"13' - 7"100' - 0"83' - 8"ROOF ACCESS
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY HIP ROOF
PARAPET TYP.
INTERNAL ROOF
DRAIN TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL
FUTURE SOLAR
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
SOLAR READY AT
FLAT ROOF AREAS
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
TRELLIS TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 37'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-6"
10' -0" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
13' -7" x 20' -5"
LIVING / DINING
11' -2" x 10' -10"
BEDROOM
9' -6" x 11' -8"
KITCHEN
5' -6" x 9' -4"
BATH
14' -5" x 9' -2"
BALCONY
18' -6" x 16' -0"
LIVING / DINING
11' -10" x 13' -4"
BED
11' -10" x 9' -2"
BATH
14' -9" x 12' -6"
KITCHEN
8' -7" x 8' -3"
BATH
11' -0" x 12' -8"
BED
33' -8" x 26' -0"
BALCONY
18' -2" x 26' -2"
LIVING / DINING
12' -5" x 12' -5"
BED
12' -5" x 9' -8"
BATH
13' -11" x 16' -6"
KITCHEN
12' -5" x 5' -3"
BATH
10' -5" x 12' -8"
DEN
12' -5" x 12' -8"
BED
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:58 AMA12
TYPICAL PLANS -
BUILDING TYPE D
221570
Author Checker
05/06/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1" = 10'-0"A12
1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 - WALK-UP D (LEVELS 2&3 SIM)
1" = 10'-0"A12
2 ROOF PLAN - WALK-UP D
UNIT PLAN - B2 - 824 SFUNIT PLAN - C7 - 1,385 SF
UNIT PLAN - C9 - 1,850 SF
WATER HEATER
WATER HEATER
WATER HEATER
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 206
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:59 AMA13
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING
TYPE D
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
BUILDING TYPE D ELEVATIONS - FRONT
BUILDING TYPE D ELEVATIONS - LEFT SIDE
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 207
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"37' - 0"ROOF TOP MECHANICALS
SCREENED BY PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 37'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"5' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"+/- 37' - 0"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:49:59 AMA13.1
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING
TYPE D
221570
Author Checker
08/01/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
BUILDING TYPE D ELEVATIONS - RIGHT SIDE
BUILDING TYPE D ELEVATIONS - BACK
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 208
ABCDEEFGABCDEFGABCDECGABCDEGMANUFACTURED STONEROCK FACECOLOR: LIGHT GREYEDSTUCCOMEDIUM SAND FINISHCOLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:BM DOVE WHITEBAPAINTED METAL TRELLISCOLOR: BRONZECSTUCCOMEDIUM SAND FINISHCOLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:BM PALM DESERT TAN STUCCOMEDIUM SAND FINISHCOLOR BASIS OF DESIGN: SW FOLKSTONEFMETAL PANELCOLOR: BRONZEGWINDOW TRIMCOLOR: BRONZEPROJECT NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYORIGINAL ISSUE:REVISIONSKEY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONI hereby certify that this plan, specification, orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensed architectunder the laws of the State of California10/19/2022 1:45:55 PMA14COLORED ELEVATIONS -RESIDENTIAL TYPE D221570AuthorChecker05/06/22Frank Sinatra & PortolaFrank Sinatra &PortolaPalm Desert, CALAND USESUBMITAL06/07/2022RESIDENTIAL BUILDING D - COLORED NORTH ELEVATIONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING D - COLORED SOUTH ELEVATIONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING D - COLORED EAST ELEVAITONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING D - COLORED WEST ELEVATIONNo. Description Date1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/222 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/223 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22Item 3B - Page 209
RAMP UP
ELEC.
WATER
TRASH
PET SPA
RA
18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"9' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"9' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"9' - 0"349' - 4"124' - 0"265' - 6"185' - 0"83' - 10"309' - 0"
24' - 0"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:00 AMA15
LEVEL P1 - MULTIFAMILY
BUILDNG
221570
Author Checker
05/06/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/16" = 1'-0"A15
1 LOWER LEVEL PARKING - BUILDING TYPE E
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 210
DOWN TO LVL P1
ENTRY
LOUNGE
PACKAGE
MAIL
UNIT D2 UNIT C1
UNIT C8
UNIT B3
UNIT B6
UNIT C6
UNIT B1
UNIT C4
UNIT A1
UNIT M1
UNIT D2
UNIT D2
UNIT D2
UNIT M1 UNIT M1
UNIT A1
UNIT A1
UNIT A1
UNIT A1
UNIT M1
UNIT C1UNIT C1
UNIT B3
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B3
UNIT C5
UNIT B1
UNIT C4UNIT A1 UNIT B3UNIT B1UNIT B3
4' - 0"
316' - 6"
185' - 5"4' - 0"131' - 0"72' - 0"41' - 9"66' - 9"91' - 9"74' - 2"6' - 10"13' - 0"
6' - 11"13' - 10"8' - 3"2' - 11"
6' - 10"12' - 10"7' - 7"2' - 10"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:06 AMA16
LEVEL 1 - MULTIFAMILY
BULDING
221570
Author Checker
05/04/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/16" = 1'-0"A16
1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 211
UNIT D2 UNIT C1
UNIT C8
UNIT B3
UNIT B6
UNIT C6
UNIT B1
UNIT C4UNIT A1
UNIT M1
UNIT D2
UNIT D2
UNIT D2
UNIT M1 UNIT M1
UNIT A1
UNIT A1
UNIT A1
UNIT A1
UNIT M1
UNIT C1UNIT C1
UNIT B3
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B3
UNIT C5
UNIT B1
UNIT M1 UNIT M1 UNIT C8
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT C4UNIT A1 UNIT B3UNIT B1UNIT B3
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:12 AMA17
LEVEL 2 & 3 -
MULTIFAMILY BUILDNG
221570
Author Checker
05/06/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/16" = 1'-0"A17
1 LEVEL 2 & 3 FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING TYPE E
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 212
16' -4" x 13' -4"
KITCHEN
12' -2" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
12' -4" x 12' -4"
BED
6' -10" x 11' -11"
BATH
11' -9" x 13' -7"
LIVING
6' -0" x 12' -3"
BALCONY
13' -7" x 12' -5"
LIVING
12' -4" x 11' -5"
BED
7' -0" x 12' -10"
BATH
11' -7" x 14' -0"
KITCHEN
13' -2" x 18' -9"
LIVING
13' -4" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
6' -4" x 10' -11"
BATH
8' -5" x 16' -9"
KITCHEN
12' -2" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
11' -1" x 16' -0"
BED
14' -5" x 18' -5"
LIVING / DINING
12' -2" x 14' -9"
KITCHEN
9' -8" x 9' -2"
BATH
12' -0" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
11' -5" x 12' -6"
LIVING
15' -4" x 9' -6"
KITCHEN
10' -3" x 11' -6"
BED
5' -10" x 10' -2"
BATH
9' -10" x 12' -1"
BATH
13' -8" x 12' -8"
LIVING
7' -9" x 10' -5"
BATH
11' -10" x 13' -0"
BED
12' -0" x 12' -10"
BED
10' -0" x 14' -0"
KITCHEN
6' -0" x 15' -4"
BALCONY
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:15 AMA18
UNIT PLANS -
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
221570
Author Checker
05/06/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
UNIT PLAN - B1 - 799 SF
UNIT PLAN - B3 - 856 SF
UNIT PLAN - M1 - 620 SFUNIT PLAN - B6 - 943 SF
UNIT PLAN - A1 - 690 SFUNIT PLAN - C1 - 1233 SF
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 213
16' -2" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
21' -4" x 13' -9"
LIVING / DINING
14' -9" x 11' -1"
KITCHEN
14' -3" x 13' -0"
BED
11' -2" x 15' -10"
BED
9' -10" x 6' -8"
BATH
6' -9" x 13' -3"
BATH
12' -2" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
10' -6" x 12' -9"
BED 13' -0" x 11' -9"
LIVING
11' -10" x 11' -0"
BED
9' -3" x 18' -0"
DEN6' -2" x 13' -9"
BATH
10' -3" x 13' -9"
KITCHEN
9' -11" x 11' -2"
BATH
11' -2" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
14' -4" x 20' -2"
LIVING / DINING11' -5" x 16' -3"
KITCHEN
12' -0" x 11' -6"
BED
6' -2" x 13' -8"
BATH
7' -3" x 10' -6"
BATH
12' -6" x 10' -6"
BED
12' -2" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
12' -1" x 12' -0"
BED
13' -8" x 12' -8"
LIVING
11' -10" x 15' -3"
BED
10' -8" x 12' -9"
KITCHEN
12' -1" x 8' -2"
BATH
12' -1" x 7' -7"
DEN
7' -8" x 10' -2"
BATH
18' -10" x 6' -0"
BALCONY
19' -11" x 13' -5"
LIVING / DINING12' -7" x 13' -11"
BED
12' -7" x 9' -1"
BATH
16' -0" x 10' -9"
KITCHEN
12' -0" x 11' -0"
BATH
12' -0" x 11' -0"
BED
12' -11" x 6' -6"
BATH
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:19 AMA19
UNIT PLANS -
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
221570
Author Checker
05/05/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
UNIT PLAN - C8 - 1,427 SF
UNIT PLAN - C4 - 1,405 SF
UNIT PLAN - C5 - 1,405 SF
UNIT PLAN - C6 - 1,396 SFUNIT PLAN - D2 - 1,679 SF
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 214
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-6"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-0"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 31'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 42'-0"
ELEVATORT.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-0"
MECHANICAL UNIT
EXHAUST TYP.
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 40'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-6"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-0"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 31'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 42'-0"
ELEVATOR OVERRUNROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY PARAPET
ELEVATOR
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 40'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
MECHANICAL UNIT
EXHAUST TYP.
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
ELEVATOR OVERRUNROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY PARAPET
ROOF TOP MECHANICALS SCREENED
BY PARAPET
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-6"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-0"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 31'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 42'-0"
ELEVATOR
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 40'-0"
MECHANICAL UNIT
EXHAUST TYP.
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 40'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-6"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-0"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 31'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 42'-0"
ELEVATOR
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 33'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
MECHANICAL UNIT
EXHAUST TYP.
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 40'-0"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:20 AMA20
BUILDING ELEVATIONS -
MULTIFAMILY
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
MULTIFAMILY - EAST ELEVATION
MULTIFAMILY - NORTH ELEVATION
MULTIFAMILY - SOUTH ELEVATION
MULTIFAMILY - WEST ELEVATION
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 215
A CCECDAGB AA
A BCG A
E
DBE B
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
ESTUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM DOVE WHITE
BA STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
SW FOLKSTONE
CSTUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
G METAL PANEL
COLOR: BRONZE H WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZE
TRELLIS:
WOOD LOOK COMPOSITED
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 12:01:25 PMA21
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
221570
Author Checker
04/07/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022MULTIFAMILY - COLORED NORTH ELEVAITON
MULTIFAMILY - COLORED EAST ELEVATION
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 216
A BCD AEACD D
HB DA GCEDC
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
ESTUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM DOVE WHITE
BA STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
SW FOLKSTONE
CSTUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
G METAL PANEL
COLOR: BRONZE H WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZE
TRELLIS:
WOOD LOOK COMPOSITED
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 12:02:58 PMA22
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
221570
Author Checker
05/18/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
MULTIFAMILY - COLORED WEST ELEVATION
MULTIFAMILY -COLORED SOUTH ELEVATION No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 217
OPEN ROOF
MECHANICAL
ENCLOSURE
OPEN ROOF
MECHANICAL
ENCLOSURE
ELEVATOR
OVERRUN
ROOF HATCH
INTERNAL DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
OPEN TRELLIS
ABOVE BALCONIES
BELOW
OPEN TRELLIS
ABOVE BALCONIES
BELOW
OPEN TRELLIS
ABOVE BALCONIES
BELOW
INTERNAL DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-4"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 42'-0"
CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL
FUTURE SOLAR
CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL
FUTURE SOLAR
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-4"
PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"
ROOF HEIGHT 31'-6"
PARAPET HEIGHT 39'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-0"
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-0"
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-4"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-0"
TYP.
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-4"
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-4"PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 36'-4"
PARAPET HEIGHT 33'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"
PARAPET HEIGHT 40'-0"
DOG HOUSE TO SCREEN
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TYP.
-STUCCO CLADDING
ROOF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT +/- 8'-6"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:22 AMA23
ROOF PLAN -
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
221570
Author Checker
05/04/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/16" = 1'-0"A23
1 ROOF PLAN - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
1/4" = 1'-0"A23
2 PARAPET SCREENING SECTION - MULTIFAMILY
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 218
SWIMMING POOL
W A L K -U P M A IL / P A C K A G ELEASING L O U N G E
MECHANICAL
CABANASGAME
SIMULATOR
CO-WORKING
SPACE
GAME
ROOM
MENS
MENS PRIVATE TERRACEPRIVATE TERRACEPRIVATE TERRACEW O R K R O O M
O P E N
O F F IC E
O F F IC E
O F F IC E
M E C H .W C
E N T R Y /C O N C IE R G E
CANOPY OVERHEAD
S T O R
FIRE TRUCK
ACCESS PATH
VI
SI
TOR PARKI
NGFIRE TRUCK
ACCESS PATH
SPA
P A C K A G E R O O M
WOMENS
WOMENS OUTDOOR SHOWERSEXTERIOR
SCREENING
LOUNGE SEATING
C L U B R O O M
L O U N G E
ENTERTAINMENT
SUITE
ENTERTAINMENT
SUITE
THEATER
MAINTAINENCE
POOL EQUIPMENT
S L O P E
INTERNAL
DRAIN TYP.
S L O P E
CANOPY
CANOPY
MECHANICAL BELOW
CANOPY
PARAPET HEIGHT 18'-6"
ROOF HATCH
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:26 AMA24
CLUB HOUSE BUILDING &
POOL TERRACE PLAN
221570
Author Checker
04/07/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/16" = 1'-0"A24
1 FLOOR PLAN - CLUB HOUSE & POOL TERRACE
1/16" = 1'-0"A24
2 ROOF PLAN - CLUB HOUSE
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 219
T.O. LEVEL
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 18'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 27'-0"
T.O. ROOF DECK
EL- 15'-0"
OUTDOOR MECHANICAL
SCREENING SYSTEM
T.O. LEVEL
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 18'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 27'-0"
T.O. ROOF DECK
EL- 15'-6"
OUTDOOR MECHANICAL
SCREENING SYSTEM
T.O. LEVEL
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 18'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 27'-0"
T.O. ROOF DECK
EL- 15'-6"
T.O. LEVEL
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 18'-6"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 27'-0"
T.O. ROOF DECK
EL- 15'-6"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:28 AMA25
BUILDING ELEVATIONS -
CLUBHOUSE
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
CLUBHOUSE - SOUTH ELEVATION
CLUBHOUSE - WEST ELEVATION
CLUBHOUSE - NORTHEAST ELEVATION
CLUBHOUSE - NORTH ELEVATION
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 220
ABC D
ABCD
ABCD
MANUFACTURED STONE
TEXTURE: ROCKFACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
BSTUCCO
BASIS OF DESIGN COLOR:
BM SAND DOLLAR
A METAL ACCENTS
PAINTED COLOR: BRONZE
TRELLIS INFILL SLATS:
WOOD LOOK COMPOSITE
C WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZED
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:30 AMA26
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
CLUBHOUSE
221570
Author Checker
04/07/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
CLUBHOUSE - NORTH
CLUBHOUSE - NORHTWEST
CLUBHOUSE - NORTHEAST
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 221
A B CD
AB CD
A B C D
MANUFACTURED STONE
TEXTURE: ROCKFACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
BSTUCCO
BASIS OF DESIGN COLOR:
BM SAND DOLLAR
A METAL ACCENTS
PAINTED COLOR: BRONZE
TRELLIS INFILL SLATS:
WOOD LOOK COMPOSITE
C WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZED
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:31 AMA27
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
CLUBHOUSE
221570
Author Checker
05/23/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
CLUBHOUSE - SOUTH
CLUBHOUSE - WEST
CLUBHOUSE-SOUTHEAST
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 222
UP
Screened
Mechanical
Area
ELEVATED POOL
DECK (+4')
RAMP UP
Elec/IDF
LockersTowels
Mech
Storage JAN
ENTRY (+4')
30' -6" x 33' -7"
WEIGHT / STRETCHING
10' -1" x 12' -8"
POOL EQUIPMENT
65' -0" x 36' -6"
POOL
37' -6" x 48' -4"
YOGA / MEDITATION LAWN
ELEV. OVER RUN SLOPEPARAPET HEIGHT - 33'-0"
INTERNAL DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
SHADE CANOPY BELOW
17' -7" x 22' -11"
GROUP FITNESS
48' -2" x 29' -10"
CARDIO
OPEN TO BELOW
PARAPET HEIGHT - 10'-0"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:35 AMA28
FITNESS BUILDING &
TERRACE
221570
Author Checker
04/07/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/8" = 1'-0"A28
1 BUILDING PLAN - FITNESS LEVEL 1
1/8" = 1'-0"A28
3 ROOF PLAN - FITNESS
1/8" = 1'-0"A28
2 BUILDING PLAN - FITNESS LEVEL 2
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 223
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 4'-0"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 33'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 19'-6"
T.O. GRADE
EL- 0'-0"
ELEVATOR OVERRUN
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 4'-0"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 33'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 19'-6"
T.O. GRADE
EL- 0'-0"
ELEVATOR OVERRUN
T.O. ROOF
EL- 30'-6"
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 4'-0"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 33'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 19'-6"
T.O. GRADE
EL- 0'-0"
ELEVATOR OVERRUN
T.O. ROOF
30'-6"
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 4'-0"
T.O. OVERRUN
EL- 33'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 19'-6"
T.O. GRADE
EL- 0'-0"
ELEVATOR OVERRUN
T.O. ROOF
EL- 30'-6"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:35 AMA30
BUILDING ELEVATIONS -
FITNESS
221570
Author Checker
06/03/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
FITNESS - NORTH ELEVATION
FITNESS - SOUTH ELEVATION
FITNESS - WEST ELEVATION
FITNESS - EAST ELEVATION.
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 224
A
B DE
BC D
A
E
BD C
A
BABE
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:35 AMA31
COLORED ELEVATIONS -
FITNESS
221570
Author Checker
04/07/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
FITNESS - WEST ELEVATION
FITNESS - SOUTH ELEVATION
FITNESS - NORTH ELEVATION
FITNESS - EAST ELEVATION
STUCCO
BASIS OF DESIGN COLOR:
BM SAND DOLLAR
B
ALUMINUM ACCENTS
COLOR: BRONZED
MANUFACTURED STONE
TEXTURE: ROCKFACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
C
STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM WAYNESBORO TAUPEA
METAL PANEL
COLOR 1:DARK BRONZEE
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 225
1 :3
FRANK SINATRA DRIVEADJACENT PROPERTY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
6' OPAQUE WALL
L E V E L 3 S I G H T L I N E
L E V E L 2 S I G H T L I N E 33' - 6"13' - 0"41' - 1"34' - 7"17' - 4"34' - 6"41' - 6"
199' - 0"3.3°LOT 12
279.9 FT
BUILDING 2
278.1 FT10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"1 :3
PORTOLA AVENUEADJACENT PROPERTY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
6' OPAQUE WALL 33' - 6"28.5 - 30.5 FTL E V E L 3 S I G H T L I N E
L E V E L 2 S I G H T L I N E
24' - 1"41' - 6"2' - 1"55' - 0"34' - 2"
229' - 11"2.8°BUILDING 8
274.9 FT10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"LOT 19
272.2 FT 12' - 0"12' - 0"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:37 AMA32
SITE SECTIONS
221570
Author Checker
05/06/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/8" = 1'-0"A32
1 STREET SECTION THROUGH FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
1/8" = 1'-0"A32
2 STREET SECTION THROUGH PORTOLA AVE
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 226
20' - 6"VARIES
10' - 6" TYP.7' - 0"11' - 8"1' - 8"10' - 0"12' - 10"11' - 8"10' - 9"0.5
12
STUCCO
COLOR: BOD BM DOVE WHITE
METAL COPING:
COLOR: BRONZE
MANUFACTURED
STONE WALL
12' - 10"PRECAST CAP
VARIES
19' - 0"METAL ROOF10' - 0" CLEAR19' - 0"11' - 4"10' - 0" CLEARVARIES
24' - 0"11' - 7"3' - 6"5' - 0"8' - 0"STUCCO
COLOR: BOD BM DOVE WHITE
TRELLIS ABOVE9' - 4"TRELLIS ABOVE
STUCCO
BOD: BM DOVE WHITE
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:38 AMA33
GARAGE, CARPORT, &
TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS
221570
Author Checker
05/03/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
1 GARAGE PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
2 GARAGE FRONT
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
3 GARAGE SIDES
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
4 CAR PORT PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
5 CAR PORT SIDE
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
6 CAR PORT FRONT
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
7 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
8 TRASH ENCLOSURE SIDE
1/4" = 1'-0"A33
9 TRASH ENCLOSURE FRONT
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 227
6' - 0"18' - 0"
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN"
BM DOVE WHITE
8"1' - 9"2' - 8"2' - 2"11' - 8"2' - 0"53°67.5.6' - 0"5' - 11"
MANUFACTURED STONE
ROCK FACE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN"
BM DOVE WHITE
8"1' - 4"3' - 9"4"77.5°6' - 0"3' - 8"6' - 0"3' - 8"
30' - 0" TYP. SCPACING
4' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"CMU PLASTER BLOCK WALL
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
WROUGHT IORN
METAL PICKET
COLOR: BLACK
2' - 0" TYP.
PRECAST COLUMN CAP
6' - 0"WROUGHT IORN
METAL PICKET
COLOR: BLACK
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:38 AMA34
SITE SIGNAGE & FENCE
SECTION ELEVATIONS
221570
Author Checker
06/01/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
3/4" = 1'-0"A34
1 MONUMENT SIGN @ PORTOLA & FRANK SINATRA - FRONT
3/4" = 1'-0"A34
2 MONUMENT SIGN @ PORTOLA ENTRY - FRONT
3/4" = 1'-0"A34
3 MONUMENT SIGN @ PORTOLA & FRANK SINATRA - SIDE
3/4" = 1'-0"A34
4 MONUMENT SIGN @ PORTOLA ENTRY - SIDE
1/2" = 1'-0"A34
5 STREET PERIMITER FENCE SECTION ELEVATION #1
1/2" = 1'-0"A34
6 FULL PICKET PERIMETER FENCE SECTION ELEVAITON #2
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 228
6' HIGH FULL PICKET FENCE
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCESECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCESECTION
6' HIGH FULL PICKET FENCESECTION
6' HIGH FULL PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
6' HIGH FULL
PICKET FENCE
SECTION
NOTE: UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
TYPICAL FENCE DESIGN INCLUDES 4'-0"
HIGH PLASTER/STUCCO WALL W/ 2'-0"
METAL PICKETS ABOVE. SEE A34 FOR
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 12:27:15 PMA34.1
SITE FENCE LAYOUT
221570
Author Checker
10/19/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
No. Description Date
1" = 30'-0"A34.1
1 SITE FENCE LAYOUT DIAGRAM
Item 3B - Page 229
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:38 AMA35
MATERIAL BOARD
221570
Author Checker
05/05/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
MANUFACTURED STONE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
STONE DIMENSIONS 9"x18"
STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM DOVE WHITE
METAL PANEL & ACCENTS
COLOR: ANODIZED BRONZE
STUCCO
COLOR BASIS OF DESIGN:
BM PALM DESERT TAN
STUCCO
BASIS OF DESIGN COLOR:
BM SAND DOLLAR
METAL PANEL:
COLOR: DARK BRONZE
PAINTED METAL TRELLIS
COLOR: BRONZE
WINDOW TRIM
COLOR: BRONZE
STUCCO
BASIS OF DESIGN COLOR:
SW FOLKSTONE
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 230
4"4"
FILL CAVITY WITH BATT
INSULATION -TYPICAL
FLEXILE FALSHING BACK
WRAP AROUND WOOD
HEADER AND SEAL
5/8" GYP BOARD
STUCCO -SEE EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS FOR
FINISH AND COLOR
18 GA PREFINISHED SHEET
METAL HEADER TRIM WITH
18 GA DROP LEG
CONTINUOUS BEAD OF SEALANT
BETWEEN PREFIN METAL FLASHING
AND WALL -JAMBS AND HEAD ONLY
NO SEALANT AT FLASHING
TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE
MEMBRANE FLASHING LAP OVER
METAL FLASHING -EXTEND
BEYOND OUTER EDGES OF JAMB
AND BEYOND ANY TRIM
AIR BARRIER LAP OVER
FLEXIBLE FLASHING AND SEAL
BUILDING PAPER CONTINUOUS
OVER AIR BARRIER
METAL PANEL -SEE EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS FOR COLOR
FILL CAVITY WITH BATT
INSULATION -TYPICAL
FLEXILE FALSHING BACK
WRAP AROUND WOOD
HEADER AND SEAL
5/8" GYP BOARD
CONTINUOUS BEAD OF SEALANT
BETWEEN PREFIN METAL FLASHING
AND WALL -JAMBS AND HEAD ONLY
2-2X LEDGERS CONTINUOUS AT
FURRING WALL -NOTCH OUT FURRING
WALL STUDS AND ATTACH LEDGERS
TO FURRING WALL PANEL, THEN
INSTALL FURRING WALL AND LEDGER
ASSEMBLY TO STRUCTURAL WALL STUDS
8"
CONTINUOUS FLASHING
STUCCO -SEE EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS FOR
FINISH AND COLOR
AIR BARRIER LAP OVER
FLEXIBLE FLASHING AND SEAL
BUILDING PAPER CONTINUOUS
OVER AIR BARRIER
STUCCO SOFFT
FILL CAVITY WITH BATT
INSULATION -TYPICAL
FLEXILE FALSHING BACK
WRAP AROUND WOOD
HEADER AND SEAL
5/8" GYP BOARD
CONTINUOUS BEAD OF SEALANT
BETWEEN PREFIN METAL FLASHING
AND WALL -JAMBS AND HEAD ONLY
STUCCO -SEE EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS FOR
FINISH AND COLOR
AIR BARRIER LAP OVER
FLEXIBLE FLASHING AND SEAL
BUILDING PAPER CONTINUOUS
OVER AIR BARRIER
10"
2-2X LEDGERS CONTINUOUS AT
FURRING WALL -NOTCH OUT FURRING
WALL STUDS AND ATTACH LEDGERS
TO FURRING WALL PANEL, THEN
INSTALL FURRING WALL AND LEDGER
ASSEMBLY TO STRUCTURAL WALL STUDS
CONTINUOUS FLASHING
STUCCO SOFFT
3
A51
2
A51
4
A51 10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"A51
6
A51
6
A51
6
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"A51
5
A51
7
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"
6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. ROOF
EL- 32'-0"
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:40 AMA51
MISC DETAILS
221570
Author Checker
07/29/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
3" = 1'-0"A51
6 DETAIL @ EXTRUDED METAL TRIM
3" = 1'-0"A51
5 DETAIL @ RECESSED WINDOW 8"
3" = 1'-0"A51
7 DETAIL @ RECESSED WINDOW 10"
3" = 1'-0"A51
1 TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL WALK UP FACADE WINDOW CONDITIONS
1/2" = 1'-0"A51
3 TYPICAL WALL SECTION 2
1/2" = 1'-0"A51
2 TYPICAL WALL SECTION 1
1/2" = 1'-0"A51
4 TYPICAL WALL SECTION 3
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 246
4
A52
2
A52
3
A52 10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"A51
6
A51
6
A51
6
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"A52
5
T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"T.O. LEVEL 1
EL- 0'-0"
T.O. LEVEL 3
EL- 21'-4"
T.O. LEVEL 2
EL- 10'-8"
T.O. PARAPET
EL- 36'-4"
FILL CAVITY WITH BATT
INSULATION -TYPICAL
FLEXILE FALSHING BACK
WRAP AROUND WOOD
HEADER AND SEAL
5/8" GYP BOARD
STUCCO -SEE EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS FOR
FINISH AND COLOR
AIR BARRIER LAP OVER
FLEXIBLE FLASHING AND SEAL
BUILDING PAPER CONTINUOUS
OVER AIR BARRIER
2-2X LEDGERS CONTINUOUS AT
FURRING WALL -NOTCH OUT FURRING
WALL STUDS AND ATTACH LEDGERS
TO FURRING WALL PANEL, THEN
INSTALL FURRING WALL AND LEDGER
ASSEMBLY TO STRUCTURAL WALL STUDS
10"
PREFINISHED SHEET METAL
DRIP FLAHSING
COLOR: TO MATCH WINDOW TRIM
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 12:06:39 PMA52
MISC DETAILS
221570
Author Checker
10/03/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1 1/2" = 1'-0"A52
1 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY FACADE WINDOW CONDITIONS
1/2" = 1'-0"A52
2 TYPICAL WALL SECTION 2 Copy 1
1/2" = 1'-0"A52
3 TYPICAL WALL SECTION 1 Copy 1
1/2" = 1'-0"A52
4 TYPICAL WALL SECTION 3 Copy 1
3" = 1'-0"A52
5 DETAIL @ RECESSED WINDOW 10" MULTI
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 247
WDFRIG
DW
WD
FRIG
DW
WDFRIG
DW
W D
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIGFRIG
FRIGFRIG
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
1. APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS
A. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
B. 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
C. 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
D. 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
E. 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
F. 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
G. 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
H. 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
BUILDING CODE REQUIRMENTS
T.D. 170'-0"
T.D. 185'-6"
UNIT
B2
UNIT
B2
UNIT
B2
UNIT
B2
AREA PER LEVEL: 10,752 SQFT/LEVEL * 3 LEVELS = 32,256 SQFT
UNIT
C7
UNIT
C7
UNIT
C7
UNIT
C7
EXIT SEPERATION47' - 1"UNIT
B4
T.D. 133'-0"
UNIT
B4
UNIT
B4
UNIT
B4 UNIT
C3
UNIT
C3
UNIT
C3
UNIT
C3
T.D. 156'-0"
AREA PER LEVEL: 10,833 SQFT/LEVEL * 3 LEVELS = 32,499 SQFTEXIT SEPERATION56' - 3"ELECUTILITYALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA
ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3, TYPE VB, GROUP R2, NFPA 13R
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE 60' HEIGHT
HEIGHT PROVIDED 37' HEIGHT
TABLE 504.4, TYPE VB, GROUP R2, NFPA 13R
ALLOWABLE STORIES ABOVE GRADE 3 STORIES
STORIES PROVIDED 3 STORIES
TABLE 506.2, TYPE VB, GROUP R2, NFPA 13R At= 7,000 SQFT
PER SECTION 506.2 EQUATION 5-2
Aa= {At + [NS x lf] x Sa
Aa = {7,000 + [7,000 x 0.75] x 3
Aa= 36,750 SQFT (12,250 SQFT/STORY)
SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS AN NFPA 13R IN ACCORDANCE WITH CBC SECTION 903.3.1
CODE CONSIDERATIONS - BUILDING TYPE A,B,C,D
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:
Dwelling units and related spaces R-2 (Primary Occupation Class)
Construction Types:
Type VB
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:43 AMA53
PRELIMINARY CODE &
AREA CALCUALTIONS -
TYPE A, B BUILDINGS
221570
Author Checker
05/06/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
3/32" = 1'-0"A53
1 BUILDING TYPE A - LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"A53
2 BUILDING TYPE B - LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 248
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW WDFRIG
DW
WD
FRIG
DWWDFRIG
DW
W D WDFRIG
DW
W D
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIG
DW
FRIGDWW D
1. APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS
A. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
B. 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
C. 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
D. 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
E. 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
F. 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
G. 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
H. 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
BUILDING CODE REQUIRMENTS
ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA
ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3, TYPE VB, GROUP R2, NFPA 13R
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE 60' HEIGHT
HEIGHT PROVIDED 37' HEIGHT
TABLE 504.4, TYPE VB, GROUP R2, NFPA 13R
ALLOWABLE STORIES ABOVE GRADE 3 STORIES
STORIES PROVIDED 3 STORIES
TABLE 506.2, TYPE VB, GROUP R2, NFPA 13R At= 7,000 SQFT
PER SECTION 506.2 EQUATION 5-2
Aa= {At + [NS x lf] x Sa
Aa = {7,000 + [7,000 x 0.75] x 3
Aa= 36,750 SQFT (12,250 SQFT/STORY)
SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS AN NFPA 13R IN ACCORDANCE WITH CBC SECTION 903.3.1
CODE CONSIDERATIONS - BUILDING TYPE A,B,C,D
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:
Dwelling units and related spaces R-2 (Primary Occupation Class)
Construction Types:
Type VB
T.D. 181'-6"
UNIT
B5
AREA PER LEVEL: 10,300 SQFT/LEVEL * 3 LEVELS = 30,900 SQFT
UNIT
B5
UNIT
B5
UNIT
B5
UNIT
C2
UNIT
C2UNIT
C2
UNIT
C2
T.D. 172'-9"MIN 35.5'EXIT SEPERATION 48' - 9"UNIT
B2
T.D. 196'-0"
UNIT
B2
UNIT
B2
UNIT
B2
UNIT
C7
UNIT
C7
UNIT
C9
T.D. 172'-0"
AREA PER LEVEL: 9,819 SQFT/LEVEL * 3 LEVELS = 29,457 SQFT
T.D. 170'-0"EXIT SEPERATION47' - 5"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:47 AMA54
PRELIMINARY CODE &
AREA CALCULATIONS -
TYPE C, D BUILDINGS
221570
Author Checker
05/31/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
3/32" = 1'-0"A54
1 BUILDING TYPE C - LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"A54
2 BUILDING TYPE D - LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 249
DWDWDWWDDW WDWD WDWDDW DWDWDW
DW1. APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS
A. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
B. 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
C. 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
D. 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
E. 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
F. 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
G. 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
H. 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
BUILDING CODE REQUIRMENTS
ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA
ABOVE GRADE LEVELS:
ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3, TYPE VA, GROUP R2, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE 70' HEIGHT
HEIGHT PROVIDED 42' HEIGHT
TABLE 504.4, TYPE VA, GROUP R2, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE STORIES ABOVE GRADE 4 STORIES
STORIES PROVIDED 3 STORIES
TABLE 506.2, TYPE VA, GROUP R2, NFPA R13 At= 36,000 SQFT
PER SECTION 506.2 EQUATION 5-2
Aa= {At + [NS x lf] x Sa
Aa = {36,000 + [12,000 x 0.75] x 3
Aa= 135,000 SQFT (45,000 SQFT/STORY)
BELOW GRADE LEVEL:
ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3, TYPE I-A, GROUP S2, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE UNLIMITED HEIGHT
HEIGHT PROVIDED 11' HEIGHT
TABLE 504.4, TYPE I-A GROUP S2, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE STORIES ABOVE GRADE UNLIMITED
TABLE 506.2, TYPE I-A, GROUP S2, NFPA R13 At= UNLIMITED
PER SECTION 506.2 EQUATION 5-2
Aa= {At + [NS x lf] x Sa
Aa= UNLIMITED
AREA CALCULATIONS - BUILDING TYPE E
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:
Dwelling units and related spaces R-2 (Primary Occupation Class)
Amenity Spaces
less than 50 Occupants B
if 50 occupants or more A-3
Parking S-2
Construction Types:
Type I-A Level P1
Type VA Level 1-3
SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
Section 510.2 - Horizontal building separation allowance
Section 510.2 allows the basement and upper levels to be considered separate and distinct
buildings for the purpose of determining area and height limitations, provided:
a) The Level P1 Parking Garage is of Type I-A construction and is separated from the building
above with a horizontal assembly having a minimum of 3 hour fire-resistance rating.
b) Shafts and stairway enclosures shall be 2 hour rated.
The horizontal separation occurs at the Level 1 floor line.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level P1PARKING S2 (TYPE 1-A)3-HR SEPARATION
RESIDENTIAL R2 (TYPE VA)
RESIDENTIAL R2 (TYPE VA)
RESIDENTIAL R2 (TYPE VA)
DIGRAMATIC BUILDING SECTION
VA AREA PER LEVEL 1: 41,966 SQFT/LEVEL
IA AREA PER LEVEL 1: 2,395 SQFT/LEVEL
3HR
SEPERATIONC.P. 112'T.D. 186'T.D. 124'T.D. 101'T.D. 172'VA AREA PER LEVEL 2 & 3: 44,361 SQFT/LEVELC.P. 112'T.D. 147'50' - 0" DEAD ENDT.D. 115'T.D. 109'43' - 3" DEAD ENDT.D. 178'C.P.
78'DEAD END15' - 5"IA AREA PER LEVEL P1: 58,827 SQFT/LEVEL
RAMP UP
TO LEVEL 1
EX IT SEP ER A TIO N 3 0 5' - 2"1/3 = 155' - 6"466' - 5"PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:50:57 AMA55
PRELIMINARY CODE &
AREA CALCUALTIONS -
TYPE E BUILDING
221570
Author Checker
05/08/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
1/32" = 1'-0"A55
1 BUILDING TYPE D - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
1/32" = 1'-0"A55
2 SECOND LEVEL CODE PLAN
1/32" = 1'-0"A55
3 ARC - CODE PLAN TYPE D LEVEL P1
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 250
UP
1. APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS
A. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
B. 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
C. 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
D. 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
E. 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS
F. 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
G. 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
H. 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
BUILDING CODE REQUIRMENTS
CLUB ROOM
CLUB ROOM
ENT. SUITE
ENT. SUITE
COWORKING
LOBBY/LOUNGE
LEASING
THEATER
POOL EQP.
MAINTENANCE
SCREENED
MECH.
GAMES/SPEAK EASY
PACKAGE
LEVEL 1 AREA: 17,311 SQFT
WEIGHTS/STRETCHING
POOL EQP
ELEC/IDF
EXTERIOR POOL
EXTERIOR POOL TERRACE (+4')
EXTERIOR YOGA/GOUP FITNESS LAWN
LEVEL 1 AREA: 2,553 SQFT EXTERIOR ENTRY TERRACE (+4')GROUP FITNESS
CARDIO EQP.
LEVEL 2 AREA: 2049 SQFT
ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA
ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3, TYPE VB, GROUP A3, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE 60' HEIGHT
HEIGHT PROVIDED 27' HEIGHT
TABLE 504.4, TYPE VB, GROUP A3, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE STORIES ABOVE GRADE 2 STORIES
STORIES PROVIDED 1 STORY
TABLE 506.2, TYPE VB, GROUP A3, NFPA 13 At= 18,000 SQFT(PER STORY)
PER SECTION 506.2 EQUATION 5-2
Aa= {At + [NS x lf] x Sa
Aa = {18,000 + [18,000 x 0.75] x 1
Aa= 31,500 SQFT
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA: 17,311 SQFT
CODE CONSIDERATIONS - BUILDING TYPE F
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:
A-3 (Primary Occupation Class)
Amenity Spaces
less than 50 Occupants B
if 50 occupants or more A-3
Construction Types:
Type VB
ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA
ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3, TYPE VB, GROUP A3, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE 60' HEIGHT
HEIGHT PROVIDED 33' HEIGHT
TABLE 504.4, TYPE VB, GROUP A3, NFPA 13
ALLOWABLE STORIES ABOVE GRADE 2 STORIES
STORIES PROVIDED 2 STORIES
TABLE 506.2, TYPE VB, GROUP A3, NFPA 13 At= 18,000 SQFT(PER STORY)
PER SECTION 506.2 EQUATION 5-2
Aa= {At + [NS x lf] x Sa
Aa = {18,000 + [18,000 x 0.75] x 2
Aa= 63,000 SQFT
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA: 4,602 SQFT
CODE CONSIDERATIONS - BUILDING TYPE G
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:
Dwelling units and related spaces A-3 (Primary Occupation Class)
Amenity Spaces
less than 50 Occupants B
if 50 occupants or more A-3
Construction Types:
Type VB
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS
KEY PLAN
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect
under the laws of the State of California
10/19/2022 11:51:00 AMA56
PRELIMINARY CODE &
AREA CALCUALTIONS -
TYPE F & G BUILDINGS
221570
Author Checker
05/08/22
Frank Sinatra & Portola
Frank Sinatra &
Portola
Palm Desert, CA
LAND USE
SUBMITAL
06/07/2022
3/32" = 1'-0"A56
2 BUILDING TYPE E - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"A56
3 BUILDING TYPE F - LEVEL 1 CODE PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"A56
4 BUILDING F LEVEL 2 CODE PLAN
No. Description Date
1 REVISED SUBMITTAL 8/1/22
2 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/3/22
3 REVISED SUBMITTAL 10/19/22
Item 3B - Page 251
LED Commercial Grade Bollard
This attractive, newly redesigned heavy-duty bolllard features
full proof aluminum construction housing, providing corrosion
and vandal resistance ideal for lighting pedestrian walkways, as
well as accenting the exterior grounds of office and apartment
buildings, hotels and parks. A solid foundation withstands
the elements, driver options work in even the worst weather
conditions.
CONSTRUCTION
LED compartment is airtight to prevent fogging and condensation
build up and keep water out. Aluminum reflector designed to reduce
glare and produce an even distribution. Excluded aluminum tube
provides as well as protects and conceals the component wiring.
Clear UV resistant polycarbonate lens allows for optimal light
transmission and protects the light engine compartment from harsh
environments.
DIMENSIONS
Diameter: 8"
Height: 36"
FEATURES & BENEFITS
• Housing is consisting of an
extruded aluminum alloy body
standard 4kV surge
• High-impact polycarbonate
diffuser
• UV stabilized powder coated
finish
• Working temperature -40°C ~
+50°C
• 5 year warranty
FRANK SINATRA - PORTOLA
CLI-FSINPORBL BL
Item 3B - Page 252
LED Commercial Grade Bollard
ORDER INFORMATION
Note:
We reserve the right to change design, materials, LEDs and finish in any way that will not alter installed appearance or reduce function and performance.
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION
BOLPF18W2000LMV40BZ LED Flat Top Bollard 18W 2035lm 4000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF18W2000LMV50BZ LED Flat Top Bollard 18W 2035lm 5000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF18W2000LMV40BZ LED Flat Round Bollard 18W 2035lm 4000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF18W2000LMV50BZ LED Flat Round Bollard 18W 2035lm 5000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF36W4000LMV40BZ LED Flat Top Bollard 36W 2035lm 4000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF36W4000LMV50BZ LED Flat Top Bollard 36W 2035lm 5000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF36W4000LMV40BZ LED Flat Round Bollard 36W 2035lm 4000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
BOLPF36W4000LMV50BZ LED Flat Round Bollard 36W 2035lm 5000K 120V-277V Bronze Finish
DRAWINGS & IMAGES
Versatile mounting holes
Item 3B - Page 253
MICRO OPTIC SYSTEM
Our new cell-inclosed, micro optic
silicone modules produce high clarity
and outstanding performance.
LED WATTAGE CHART
16L 32L 48L 64L
350 milliamps 18w ---
530 milliamps 28w 54w --
700 milliamps 36w 71w 104w 137w
1050 milliamps 56w 106w 156w 205w
Cat# Light Dist. # of LEDs Milliamps Kelvin Volts Mounting Color Options
120-277
(UNV)
347-480
(HV)
Bronze Textured
(BRZ)
White Textured
(WHT)
Smooth White
Gloss
(SWT)
Silver
(SVR)
Black Textured
(BLK)
Smooth Black
Gloss
(SBK)
Graphite Textured
(GPH)
Grey Textured
(GRY)
Custom
(CS)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
5
16L Only
16L-32L Only
Consult Factory for Lead Time. Consult Factory for 90 CRI Requests.
Standard
Universal Voltage 120-277
Post Top
Over 2” OD
(PT2)
Post Top
Over 3” OD
(PT3)
Post Top
Over 3-1/2” OD
(PT312)
16
(16L)
32
(32L)
48
(48L)
64
(64L)
Type 2 (T2)
Type 3
(T3)
Type 4 (T4)
Type 5
(T5)
Horizon 1
(HRZ-1)
350
(35)
530
(53)
700
(7)
1050
(1)
Dome Top (DT)
Marine Grade Finish (MGF)
House Side Shield (HSS)
Photocell (PC)
Nema 7-Pin Receptacle (PE7)
Photocell + Receptacle (PCR)
Receptacle + Shorting Cap (PER)
FSP-211 with Motion Sensor
(FSP-8) 8'+ Below
(FSP-20) 9'-20’Heights
(FSP-40) 21'-40' Heights
Bird Spikes (BS)
5
5
5
5
2700K, 80 CRI
(27K8)
3000K, 70 CRI
(30K7)
3000K, 80 CRI
(30K8)
3500K, 80 CRI
(35K8)
4000K, 70 CRI
(40K7)
4000K, 80 CRI
(40K8)
5000K, 70 CRI
(50K7)
5000K, 80 CRI
(50K8)
3
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
REV. 02.24.22 1
Horizon Post Top luminaire is a blend of beautiful
luminaire design which is a compliment to
commercial or recreational pathways. It is named the
Horizon because the luminaire is intended to
be a vehicle of which the horizon can be viewed
through the inside and around the luminaire without
obstruction.
This Dark Sky Friendly Full Cutoff luminaire utilizes
silicone Micro Optics to distribute light uniformly as
its LEDs are recessed and hidden. Its performance
exceeds IES minimum foot candle levels at lower
wattage and extends maintenance cycles throughout
its lifetime. Horizon PT is available in 2700, 3000K,
3500K, 4000K, 5000K Kelvin temperatures and a
range of 18 to 205 watts.
Built to conform to the strictest Made in America
standards. Designed, tooled, fabricated and
assembled in the USA.
Project Name:Type:
FRANK SINATRA - PORTOLA
CLI-FSINPORP4 P4
ALL EMERGENCY AND
CONTROLS
REQUIREMENTS TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
Item 3B - Page 254
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
LUMEN DATA CHART
PART NUMBER T2
LUMENS T2 LM/W T3
LUMENS T3 LM/W T3-HSS
LUMENS T3-HSSLM/W T4
LUMENS T4 LM/W T4-HSS
LUMENS T4-HSSLM/W T5
LUMENS T5 LM/W Watts
HRZ-1-16L-35-30K7 2142 119 2088 116 1044 58 2070 115 1026 57 2160 120 18
HRZ-116L-35-40K7 2305 128 2247 125 1116 62 2227 124 1098 61 2322 129 18
HRZ-1-16L-35-50K7 2356 131 2297 128 1188 66 2277 127 1170 65 2376 132 18
HRZ-1-16L-53-30K7 3275 117 3192 114 1624 58 3165 113 1596 57 3304 118 28
HRZ-116L-53-40K7 3524 126 3435 123 1736 62 3406 122 1708 61 3556 127 28
HRZ-1-16L-53-50K7 3603 129 3511 125 1848 66 3482 124 1820 65 3640 130 28
HRZ-1-16L-7-30K7 4100 114 4115 111 2088 58 4003 111 2052 57 4176 116 36
HRZ-1-16L-7-40K7 4411 123 4300 119 2232 62 4308 120 2196 61 4500 125 36
HRZ-1-16L-7-50K7 4510 125 4396 122 2376 66 4404 122 2340 65 4608 128 36
HRZ-1-16L-1-30K7 5858 105 5712 102 3248 58 5661 101 3192 57 5880 105 56
HRZ-1-16L-1-40K7 6303 113 6146 110 3472 62 6091 109 3416 61 6328 113 56
HRZ-1-16L-1-50K7 6443 115 6283 112 3696 66 6227 111 3640 65 6496 116 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-30K7 5858 105 5712 102 3248 58 5661 101 3192 57 5880 105 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-40K7 6303 113 6146 110 3472 62 6091 109 3416 61 6328 113 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-50K7 6443 115 6283 112 3696 66 6227 111 3640 65 6496 116 56
HRZ-1-32L-7-30K7 7427 105 7881 111 4118 58 7896 111 4047 57 8236 116 71
HRZ-1-32L-7-40K7 7991 113 8480 119 4402 62 8496 120 4331 61 8875 125 71
HRZ-1-32L-7-50K7 8169 115 8669 122 4686 66 8685 122 4615 65 9088 128 71
HRZ-1-32L-1-30K7 11088 105 10812 102 6148 58 10715 101 6042 57 11130 105 106
HRZ-1-32L-1-40K7 11930 113 11634 110 6572 62 11529 109 6466 61 11978 113 106
HRZ-1-32L-1-50K7 12196 115 11893 112 6996 66 11787 111 6890 65 12296 116 106
HRZ-1-48L-7-30K7 11844 114 11544 111 6032 58 11648 112 5928 57 12068 116 104
HRZ-1-48L-7-40K7 12744 123 12421 119 6448 62 12444 120 6344 61 12985 125 104
HRZ-1-48L-7-50K7 13028 125 12698 122 6864 66 12792 123 6760 65 13275 128 104
HRZ-1-48L-1-30K7 16318 105 15912 102 9048 58 15769 101 8892 57 16455 105 156
HRZ-1-48L-1-40K7 17558 113 17121 110 9672 62 16968 109 9516 61 17705 113 156
HRZ-1-48L-1-50K7 17950 115 17503 112 10296 66 17346 111 10140 65 18100 116 156
HRZ-1-64L-7-30K7 15488 114 15096 111 7888 58 15124 111 7752 57 15781 116 136
HRZ-1-64L-7-40K7 16665 123 16243 119 8432 62 16273 120 8296 61 16981 125 136
HRZ-1-64L-7-50K7 17037 125 16606 122 8976 66 16728 123 8840 65 17359 128 136
HRZ-1-64L-1-30K7 23346 114 22755 111 11890 58 20722 101 11685 57 23780 116 205
HRZ-1-64L-1-40K7 25120 123 24484 119 12710 62 22297 109 12505 61 25625 125 205
HRZ-1-64L-1-50K7 25681 125 25031 122 13530 66 22795 111 13325 65 26240 128 205
Lumen Maintenance Data
Ambient
Temperature
Drive
Current
L90
Hours*
L70
Hours**
30,000
Hours*
50,000
Hours*
60,00
Hours*
100,000
Hours**
25°C Up to 700mA 58,000 173,000 95.7%91.6%89.6%82.1%
1050mA 38,000 96,000 93.0%85.4%81.8%68.8%
*Reported extrapolations per IESNA TM-21 **Projected extrapolations per IESNA TM-21
2
Housing: Low Profile Cast, Spun Aluminum Housing + Frame
LED: Lumileds Luxeon MX
Optics: Micro Optics; T2, T3, T4 and T5
Watts: 18-205
Listings: Conforms to UL 1598 Standards
Driver: 0-10V Dimming driver as standard by Philips Advance
THD @ Max Load < 15%
Power Factor @ Max Load < 0.95
Kelvin: 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4000K, or 5000K
CRI: 70, 80 or 90
Finish: 5 mils Powder Coat
Warranty: Standard Warranty is 5 years for Driver and LEDs
Surge Protection: 20KA supplied as standard
Item 3B - Page 255
PRODUCT DIMENSIONS
24.00
25.75
A
B
C
D
2345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
NEXT ASSY USED ON
APPLICATION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH 1 BEND 1
TWO PLACE DECIMAL .031
THREE PLACE DECIMAL .015
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
MATERIAL
FINISH
DRAWN
CHECKED
ENG APPR.
MFG APPR.
Q.A.
COMMENTS:
DATENAME
TITLE:
SIZEB DWG. NO.
WEIGHT: SCALE: NTS
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
5/26/16
HORIZO
HRZLE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
JR
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
NLS LIGHTING. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF NLS LIGHTING. IS PROHIBITED.
1
Ra
B
A
Dome Top (DT)
3
DIMENSION HRZ-1
A 24.00 in
B 25.75 in
EPA STD TOP DOME TOP
HRZ-1 1.15 1.40
Item 3B - Page 256
MICRO OPTIC SYSTEM
Our new cell-inclosed, micro optic
silicone modules produce high clarity
and outstanding performance.
LED WATTAGE CHART
16L 32L 48L 64L
350 milliamps 18w ---
530 milliamps 28w 54w --
700 milliamps 36w 71w 104w 137w
1050 milliamps 56w 106w 156w 205w
Cat# Light Dist. # of LEDs Milliamps Kelvin Volts Mounting Color Options
120-277
(UNV)
347-480
(HV)
Bronze Textured
(BRZ)
White Textured
(WHT)
Smooth White
Gloss
(SWT)
Silver
(SVR)
Black Textured
(BLK)
Smooth Black
Gloss
(SBK)
Graphite Textured
(GPH)
Grey Textured
(GRY)
Custom
(CS)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
5
16L Only
16L-32L Only
Consult Factory for Lead Time. Consult Factory for 90 CRI Requests.
Standard
Universal Voltage 120-277
Post Top
Over 2” OD
(PT2)
Post Top
Over 3” OD
(PT3)
Post Top
Over 3-1/2” OD
(PT312)
16
(16L)
32
(32L)
48
(48L)
64
(64L)
Type 2 (T2)
Type 3
(T3)
Type 4 (T4)
Type 5
(T5)
Horizon 1
(HRZ-1)
350
(35)
530
(53)
700
(7)
1050
(1)
Dome Top (DT)
Marine Grade Finish (MGF)
House Side Shield (HSS)
Photocell (PC)
Nema 7-Pin Receptacle (PE7)
Photocell + Receptacle (PCR)
Receptacle + Shorting Cap (PER)
FSP-211 with Motion Sensor
(FSP-8) 8'+ Below
(FSP-20) 9'-20’Heights
(FSP-40) 21'-40' Heights
Bird Spikes (BS)
5
5
5
5
2700K, 80 CRI
(27K8)
3000K, 70 CRI
(30K7)
3000K, 80 CRI
(30K8)
3500K, 80 CRI
(35K8)
4000K, 70 CRI
(40K7)
4000K, 80 CRI
(40K8)
5000K, 70 CRI
(50K7)
5000K, 80 CRI
(50K8)
3
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
REV. 02.24.22 1
Horizon Post Top luminaire is a blend of beautiful
luminaire design which is a compliment to
commercial or recreational pathways. It is named the
Horizon because the luminaire is intended to
be a vehicle of which the horizon can be viewed
through the inside and around the luminaire without
obstruction.
This Dark Sky Friendly Full Cutoff luminaire utilizes
silicone Micro Optics to distribute light uniformly as
its LEDs are recessed and hidden. Its performance
exceeds IES minimum foot candle levels at lower
wattage and extends maintenance cycles throughout
its lifetime. Horizon PT is available in 2700, 3000K,
3500K, 4000K, 5000K Kelvin temperatures and a
range of 18 to 205 watts.
Built to conform to the strictest Made in America
standards. Designed, tooled, fabricated and
assembled in the USA.
Project Name:Type:
FRANK SINATRA - PORTOLA
CLI-FSINPORP4S P4S
ALL EMERGENCY AND
CONTROLS
REQUIREMENTS TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
Item 3B - Page 257
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
LUMEN DATA CHART
PART NUMBER T2
LUMENS T2 LM/W T3
LUMENS T3 LM/W T3-HSS
LUMENS T3-HSSLM/W T4
LUMENS T4 LM/W T4-HSS
LUMENS T4-HSSLM/W T5
LUMENS T5 LM/W Watts
HRZ-1-16L-35-30K7 2142 119 2088 116 1044 58 2070 115 1026 57 2160 120 18
HRZ-116L-35-40K7 2305 128 2247 125 1116 62 2227 124 1098 61 2322 129 18
HRZ-1-16L-35-50K7 2356 131 2297 128 1188 66 2277 127 1170 65 2376 132 18
HRZ-1-16L-53-30K7 3275 117 3192 114 1624 58 3165 113 1596 57 3304 118 28
HRZ-116L-53-40K7 3524 126 3435 123 1736 62 3406 122 1708 61 3556 127 28
HRZ-1-16L-53-50K7 3603 129 3511 125 1848 66 3482 124 1820 65 3640 130 28
HRZ-1-16L-7-30K7 4100 114 4115 111 2088 58 4003 111 2052 57 4176 116 36
HRZ-1-16L-7-40K7 4411 123 4300 119 2232 62 4308 120 2196 61 4500 125 36
HRZ-1-16L-7-50K7 4510 125 4396 122 2376 66 4404 122 2340 65 4608 128 36
HRZ-1-16L-1-30K7 5858 105 5712 102 3248 58 5661 101 3192 57 5880 105 56
HRZ-1-16L-1-40K7 6303 113 6146 110 3472 62 6091 109 3416 61 6328 113 56
HRZ-1-16L-1-50K7 6443 115 6283 112 3696 66 6227 111 3640 65 6496 116 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-30K7 5858 105 5712 102 3248 58 5661 101 3192 57 5880 105 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-40K7 6303 113 6146 110 3472 62 6091 109 3416 61 6328 113 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-50K7 6443 115 6283 112 3696 66 6227 111 3640 65 6496 116 56
HRZ-1-32L-7-30K7 7427 105 7881 111 4118 58 7896 111 4047 57 8236 116 71
HRZ-1-32L-7-40K7 7991 113 8480 119 4402 62 8496 120 4331 61 8875 125 71
HRZ-1-32L-7-50K7 8169 115 8669 122 4686 66 8685 122 4615 65 9088 128 71
HRZ-1-32L-1-30K7 11088 105 10812 102 6148 58 10715 101 6042 57 11130 105 106
HRZ-1-32L-1-40K7 11930 113 11634 110 6572 62 11529 109 6466 61 11978 113 106
HRZ-1-32L-1-50K7 12196 115 11893 112 6996 66 11787 111 6890 65 12296 116 106
HRZ-1-48L-7-30K7 11844 114 11544 111 6032 58 11648 112 5928 57 12068 116 104
HRZ-1-48L-7-40K7 12744 123 12421 119 6448 62 12444 120 6344 61 12985 125 104
HRZ-1-48L-7-50K7 13028 125 12698 122 6864 66 12792 123 6760 65 13275 128 104
HRZ-1-48L-1-30K7 16318 105 15912 102 9048 58 15769 101 8892 57 16455 105 156
HRZ-1-48L-1-40K7 17558 113 17121 110 9672 62 16968 109 9516 61 17705 113 156
HRZ-1-48L-1-50K7 17950 115 17503 112 10296 66 17346 111 10140 65 18100 116 156
HRZ-1-64L-7-30K7 15488 114 15096 111 7888 58 15124 111 7752 57 15781 116 136
HRZ-1-64L-7-40K7 16665 123 16243 119 8432 62 16273 120 8296 61 16981 125 136
HRZ-1-64L-7-50K7 17037 125 16606 122 8976 66 16728 123 8840 65 17359 128 136
HRZ-1-64L-1-30K7 23346 114 22755 111 11890 58 20722 101 11685 57 23780 116 205
HRZ-1-64L-1-40K7 25120 123 24484 119 12710 62 22297 109 12505 61 25625 125 205
HRZ-1-64L-1-50K7 25681 125 25031 122 13530 66 22795 111 13325 65 26240 128 205
Lumen Maintenance Data
Ambient
Temperature
Drive
Current
L90
Hours*
L70
Hours**
30,000
Hours*
50,000
Hours*
60,00
Hours*
100,000
Hours**
25°C Up to 700mA 58,000 173,000 95.7%91.6%89.6%82.1%
1050mA 38,000 96,000 93.0%85.4%81.8%68.8%
*Reported extrapolations per IESNA TM-21 **Projected extrapolations per IESNA TM-21
2
Housing: Low Profile Cast, Spun Aluminum Housing + Frame
LED: Lumileds Luxeon MX
Optics: Micro Optics; T2, T3, T4 and T5
Watts: 18-205
Listings: Conforms to UL 1598 Standards
Driver: 0-10V Dimming driver as standard by Philips Advance
THD @ Max Load < 15%
Power Factor @ Max Load < 0.95
Kelvin: 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4000K, or 5000K
CRI: 70, 80 or 90
Finish: 5 mils Powder Coat
Warranty: Standard Warranty is 5 years for Driver and LEDs
Surge Protection: 20KA supplied as standard
Item 3B - Page 258
PRODUCT DIMENSIONS
24.00
25.75
A
B
C
D
2345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
NEXT ASSY USED ON
APPLICATION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH 1 BEND 1
TWO PLACE DECIMAL .031
THREE PLACE DECIMAL .015
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
MATERIAL
FINISH
DRAWN
CHECKED
ENG APPR.
MFG APPR.
Q.A.
COMMENTS:
DATENAME
TITLE:
SIZEB DWG. NO.
WEIGHT: SCALE: NTS
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
5/26/16
HORIZO
HRZLE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
JR
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
NLS LIGHTING. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF NLS LIGHTING. IS PROHIBITED.
1
Ra
B
A
Dome Top (DT)
3
DIMENSION HRZ-1
A 24.00 in
B 25.75 in
EPA STD TOP DOME TOP
HRZ-1 1.15 1.40
Item 3B - Page 259
MICRO OPTIC SYSTEM
Our new cell-inclosed, micro optic
silicone modules produce high clarity
and outstanding performance.
LED WATTAGE CHART
16L 32L 48L 64L
350 milliamps 18w ---
530 milliamps 28w 54w --
700 milliamps 36w 71w 104w 137w
1050 milliamps 56w 106w 156w 205w
Cat# Light Dist. # of LEDs Milliamps Kelvin Volts Mounting Color Options
120-277
(UNV)
347-480
(HV)
Bronze Textured
(BRZ)
White Textured
(WHT)
Smooth White
Gloss
(SWT)
Silver
(SVR)
Black Textured
(BLK)
Smooth Black
Gloss
(SBK)
Graphite Textured
(GPH)
Grey Textured
(GRY)
Custom
(CS)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
5
16L Only
16L-32L Only
Consult Factory for Lead Time. Consult Factory for 90 CRI Requests.
Standard
Universal Voltage 120-277
Post Top
Over 2” OD
(PT2)
Post Top
Over 3” OD
(PT3)
Post Top
Over 3-1/2” OD
(PT312)
16
(16L)
32
(32L)
48
(48L)
64
(64L)
Type 2 (T2)
Type 3
(T3)
Type 4 (T4)
Type 5
(T5)
Horizon 1
(HRZ-1)
350
(35)
530
(53)
700
(7)
1050
(1)
Dome Top (DT)
Marine Grade Finish (MGF)
House Side Shield (HSS)
Photocell (PC)
Nema 7-Pin Receptacle (PE7)
Photocell + Receptacle (PCR)
Receptacle + Shorting Cap (PER)
FSP-211 with Motion Sensor
(FSP-8) 8'+ Below
(FSP-20) 9'-20’Heights
(FSP-40) 21'-40' Heights
Bird Spikes (BS)
5
5
5
5
2700K, 80 CRI
(27K8)
3000K, 70 CRI
(30K7)
3000K, 80 CRI
(30K8)
3500K, 80 CRI
(35K8)
4000K, 70 CRI
(40K7)
4000K, 80 CRI
(40K8)
5000K, 70 CRI
(50K7)
5000K, 80 CRI
(50K8)
3
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
REV. 02.24.22 1
Horizon Post Top luminaire is a blend of beautiful
luminaire design which is a compliment to
commercial or recreational pathways. It is named the
Horizon because the luminaire is intended to
be a vehicle of which the horizon can be viewed
through the inside and around the luminaire without
obstruction.
This Dark Sky Friendly Full Cutoff luminaire utilizes
silicone Micro Optics to distribute light uniformly as
its LEDs are recessed and hidden. Its performance
exceeds IES minimum foot candle levels at lower
wattage and extends maintenance cycles throughout
its lifetime. Horizon PT is available in 2700, 3000K,
3500K, 4000K, 5000K Kelvin temperatures and a
range of 18 to 205 watts.
Built to conform to the strictest Made in America
standards. Designed, tooled, fabricated and
assembled in the USA.
Project Name:Type:
FRANK SINATRA - PORTOLA
CLI-FSINPORP5 P5
ALL EMERGENCY AND
CONTROLS
REQUIREMENTS TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
Item 3B - Page 260
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
LUMEN DATA CHART
PART NUMBER T2
LUMENS T2 LM/W T3
LUMENS T3 LM/W T3-HSS
LUMENS T3-HSSLM/W T4
LUMENS T4 LM/W T4-HSS
LUMENS T4-HSSLM/W T5
LUMENS T5 LM/W Watts
HRZ-1-16L-35-30K7 2142 119 2088 116 1044 58 2070 115 1026 57 2160 120 18
HRZ-116L-35-40K7 2305 128 2247 125 1116 62 2227 124 1098 61 2322 129 18
HRZ-1-16L-35-50K7 2356 131 2297 128 1188 66 2277 127 1170 65 2376 132 18
HRZ-1-16L-53-30K7 3275 117 3192 114 1624 58 3165 113 1596 57 3304 118 28
HRZ-116L-53-40K7 3524 126 3435 123 1736 62 3406 122 1708 61 3556 127 28
HRZ-1-16L-53-50K7 3603 129 3511 125 1848 66 3482 124 1820 65 3640 130 28
HRZ-1-16L-7-30K7 4100 114 4115 111 2088 58 4003 111 2052 57 4176 116 36
HRZ-1-16L-7-40K7 4411 123 4300 119 2232 62 4308 120 2196 61 4500 125 36
HRZ-1-16L-7-50K7 4510 125 4396 122 2376 66 4404 122 2340 65 4608 128 36
HRZ-1-16L-1-30K7 5858 105 5712 102 3248 58 5661 101 3192 57 5880 105 56
HRZ-1-16L-1-40K7 6303 113 6146 110 3472 62 6091 109 3416 61 6328 113 56
HRZ-1-16L-1-50K7 6443 115 6283 112 3696 66 6227 111 3640 65 6496 116 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-30K7 5858 105 5712 102 3248 58 5661 101 3192 57 5880 105 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-40K7 6303 113 6146 110 3472 62 6091 109 3416 61 6328 113 56
HRZ-1-32L-53-50K7 6443 115 6283 112 3696 66 6227 111 3640 65 6496 116 56
HRZ-1-32L-7-30K7 7427 105 7881 111 4118 58 7896 111 4047 57 8236 116 71
HRZ-1-32L-7-40K7 7991 113 8480 119 4402 62 8496 120 4331 61 8875 125 71
HRZ-1-32L-7-50K7 8169 115 8669 122 4686 66 8685 122 4615 65 9088 128 71
HRZ-1-32L-1-30K7 11088 105 10812 102 6148 58 10715 101 6042 57 11130 105 106
HRZ-1-32L-1-40K7 11930 113 11634 110 6572 62 11529 109 6466 61 11978 113 106
HRZ-1-32L-1-50K7 12196 115 11893 112 6996 66 11787 111 6890 65 12296 116 106
HRZ-1-48L-7-30K7 11844 114 11544 111 6032 58 11648 112 5928 57 12068 116 104
HRZ-1-48L-7-40K7 12744 123 12421 119 6448 62 12444 120 6344 61 12985 125 104
HRZ-1-48L-7-50K7 13028 125 12698 122 6864 66 12792 123 6760 65 13275 128 104
HRZ-1-48L-1-30K7 16318 105 15912 102 9048 58 15769 101 8892 57 16455 105 156
HRZ-1-48L-1-40K7 17558 113 17121 110 9672 62 16968 109 9516 61 17705 113 156
HRZ-1-48L-1-50K7 17950 115 17503 112 10296 66 17346 111 10140 65 18100 116 156
HRZ-1-64L-7-30K7 15488 114 15096 111 7888 58 15124 111 7752 57 15781 116 136
HRZ-1-64L-7-40K7 16665 123 16243 119 8432 62 16273 120 8296 61 16981 125 136
HRZ-1-64L-7-50K7 17037 125 16606 122 8976 66 16728 123 8840 65 17359 128 136
HRZ-1-64L-1-30K7 23346 114 22755 111 11890 58 20722 101 11685 57 23780 116 205
HRZ-1-64L-1-40K7 25120 123 24484 119 12710 62 22297 109 12505 61 25625 125 205
HRZ-1-64L-1-50K7 25681 125 25031 122 13530 66 22795 111 13325 65 26240 128 205
Lumen Maintenance Data
Ambient
Temperature
Drive
Current
L90
Hours*
L70
Hours**
30,000
Hours*
50,000
Hours*
60,00
Hours*
100,000
Hours**
25°C Up to 700mA 58,000 173,000 95.7%91.6%89.6%82.1%
1050mA 38,000 96,000 93.0%85.4%81.8%68.8%
*Reported extrapolations per IESNA TM-21 **Projected extrapolations per IESNA TM-21
2
Housing: Low Profile Cast, Spun Aluminum Housing + Frame
LED: Lumileds Luxeon MX
Optics: Micro Optics; T2, T3, T4 and T5
Watts: 18-205
Listings: Conforms to UL 1598 Standards
Driver: 0-10V Dimming driver as standard by Philips Advance
THD @ Max Load < 15%
Power Factor @ Max Load < 0.95
Kelvin: 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4000K, or 5000K
CRI: 70, 80 or 90
Finish: 5 mils Powder Coat
Warranty: Standard Warranty is 5 years for Driver and LEDs
Surge Protection: 20KA supplied as standard
Item 3B - Page 261
PRODUCT DIMENSIONS
24.00
25.75
A
B
C
D
2345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
NEXT ASSY USED ON
APPLICATION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL
ANGULAR: MACH 1 BEND 1
TWO PLACE DECIMAL .031
THREE PLACE DECIMAL .015
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC
TOLERANCING PER:
MATERIAL
FINISH
DRAWN
CHECKED
ENG APPR.
MFG APPR.
Q.A.
COMMENTS:
DATENAME
TITLE:
SIZEB DWG. NO.
WEIGHT: SCALE: NTS
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
5/26/16
HORIZO
HRZLE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
JR
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
NLS LIGHTING. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF NLS LIGHTING. IS PROHIBITED.
1
Ra
B
A
Dome Top (DT)
3
DIMENSION HRZ-1
A 24.00 in
B 25.75 in
EPA STD TOP DOME TOP
HRZ-1 1.15 1.40
Item 3B - Page 262
Fixture
Type
Description Dimming
Interface
Product Registration ID Lamps, CCT, Lumen,
Optics, CRI
Input
Voltage
Fixture
Wattage
Total
Qty
Mounting, Finishes, Remarks &
Other Notes
BL LED BOLLARD TYPE V DISTRIBUTION
0-10V
AVAILABLE CLI-FSINPORBL LED MODULE, 2094lm,
4000K UNV 18 156
36 INCH HEIGHT, BRONZE FINISH TO
BE VERIFIED
P4 LED AREA POST TOP TYPE IV DISTRIBUTION
0-10V
AVAILABLE CLI-FSINPORP4 LED MODULE, 10715lm,
4000K UNV 106 78
12 FOOT MOUNTING HEIGHT FINISH
COLOR TO BE DETERMINED
P4S LED AREA POST TOP TYPE IV DISTRIBUTION WITH
HPUSE SIDE SHEILD
0-10V
AVAILABLE CLI-FSINPORP4S LED MODULE, 6042lm,
4000K UNV 106 11 12 FOOT MOUNTING HEIGHT FINISH
COLOR TO BE DETERMINED
P5 LED AREA POST TOP TYPE V DISTRIBUTION
0-10V
AVAILABLE CLI-FSINPORP5 LED MODULE, 11181lm,
4000K UNV 106 11
12 FOOT MOUNTING HEIGHT FINISH
COLOR TO BE DETERMINED
CNTRL
Luminaire Schedule (Issue: June 8, 2022)
Contact Kaz Halcovich with Commercial Lighting Industries, 800-755-0155, Kaz@Commercial-Lighting.net for pricing
ARCHITECTURAL FIXTURE TYPES
Project No. FRANK SINATRA - PORTOLA
SUBSTITUTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND VALUE ENGINEERING WILL NOT
BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE
ARCHITECT OR OWNER. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Controls Package - TBD
Notes, Exceptions, Clarifications
WIRING: 120V Leading Edge dimmers (old technology for mostly incandescent fixtures) aka Triac/120V dimming, and 120V Trailing Edge dimmers aka ELV dimming (utilizing standard 3 wire
White/Black/Green) are not interchangeable with 0-10V dimming which has two additional low voltage wires (Grey/Violet) for analog control signal, using one volt increments from 0 to 10,
thus dimming the LED fixtures down to 10% or even 1%. Each fixture much be ordered with the appropriate 120V or the 0-10V driver depending on which will dim it, they are NOT
interchangeable. Do Not assume a fixture with 0-10V is "standard" and will thus dim correctly if only 120V dimming is available.
VOLTAGE: Voltage to be verified. See Volt column: DV means Dual-Volt - fixtures come compatible for either 120 or 277V. MV means Multi-Volt - fixtures come compatible for either
120/208/240/277/347 volts. TBD means the fixture comes in 120 or 277 but not both and thus the voltage for these fixtures must be verified prior to ordering.
DIMMING: The method of dimming each fixture type (generally either Non-Dim, ELV/MLV, 0-10v or DALI/Ecosystem) may not have been known at the time the of preliminary specifications submission. Some
luminaires may be available with different dimming than is indicated - see the catalog cuts. When requesting a quotation, and ordering, the purchaser must verify the dimming method desired (to match the
wiring and type of dimming that will get installed) of each type and request the quotation accordingly. Once product is on site, the dimming installed will have to be compatible with the luminaires. Note: the
default dimming specifications are: For CA, US - all 0-10V wherever possible if using central Control System - same. Otherwise, any luminaire that is not 0-10V or combo ELV/120V, is specified as ELV because
it cannot be assumed that LV wiring will be run.
PHOTOMETRIC COMPLIANCE: A complete Photometric drawing for this project as currently drawn and specified, has been submitted to approving authorities a applicable. Any substitutions
or changes nullify the report and compliance and are strictly forbid without writtent approval from the owner, architect or lighting designer - NO SUBSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED.
LTG SPEC VERIFICATION: Purchaser assumes responsibility for, and must verify with CLI the following prior to purchasing: Voltage, specific mounting details (including recessed downlight
hanger bars if non-standard from the Mfg) , NYC or Chicago codes, IC Rating, wind/gust pole factors, integral luminaire wiring gauge, custom reflector reflectances, Kelvin temperature,
distribution, emergency use and dimming method. The above catalog #s may not be completely solidified at time of drawing issuance for construction.
ENERGY COMPLIANCE: The purchasing party is responsible for solidifying the lighting package in compliance with the State Energy Code, both with respect to Lighting Power Density (LPD) and
the use of mandated controls (dimmers, photocells, occupancy sensors, etc.). Consult with Istvan Derzsi, Sr. Lighting Designer of Commercial Lighting Industries 323-905-2220 to ensure
compliance prior to ordering.
CONTROLS: The control system being implemented has been designed per meetings with the owner and architect, determining the complete requirements of the control system, and
engineered to the exact specifications of the luminaires in this schedule, and in compliance with the State Energy Code. Any changes to the above would affect the Controls engineering and
thus would require re-submission to all parties: Owner, Architect, Lighting Designer, Controls Manufacturer and the State Energy Compliance Department.
Item 3B - Page 263
Item 3B - Page 264
Item 3B - Page 265
Item 3B - Page 266
December 23, 2022
Nick Melloni
Senior Planner
City of Palm Desert – Development Services
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
RE: Frank Sinatra and Portola Development – Response to Neighbor Appeal
Dear Mr. Melloni,
Hayes Dietrich is in receipt of the appeal application filed by Mr. Don Mess, resident of The
Retreat at Desert Willow. After initial review of the appeal application, Mr. Mess claims that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the Project violates the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) needed to
be prepared due to substantial evidence supporting fair arguments that the Project would result
in potentially significant and unmitigated impacts in several areas. Hayes Dietrich is confident
that this claim has no merit and the City of Palm Desert properly followed the necessary
procedures in determining that a MND was the correct environmental document through the
Initial Study, the MND and Initial Study contain complete and accurate reporting of the
environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project, and that the City of
Palm Desert processed the documentation with all appropriate agencies and within a timeline in
accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Palm Desert local CEQA
Guidelines.
The validity of Mr. Mess’s appeal is highly questionable as neither his testimony or that of any
other person at or prior to the Public Hearing on December 6th through written or verbal
testimony raised any concerns of the MND documents not being sufficient and that an EIR would
be the appropriate environmental analysis document for this Project. The terms CEQA, MND and
EIR were never mentioned as part of the public testimony and the Appellant is attempting to use
CEQA as an alternative way to delay the Project as his previous testimony was not supported.
The Project is in full compliance with objective standards in the City of Palm Desert’s General
Plan, Housing Element and Municipal Zoning Code, which qualified the Project with protection
under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”).
Furthermore, an appeal requires that the Appellant provide specific details for the basis of the
filed appeal. Mr. Mess has failed to provide any evidence that would support his claim that an
Item 3B - Page 267
EIR would be needed because “substantial evidence supports fair arguments that the Project will
result in potentially significant and unmitigated impacts in several areas.” A claim of this
magnitude would require the evidence that Mr. Mess alludes to, but he has failed to provide any
documentation, information or even an item of concern at any point before, during or after the
Public Hearing. The purpose of an EIR is to provide information or alternatives if an environmental
impact is not able to be mitigated. All environmental impacts of the Project are insignificant or
have minimal impact that is able to be mitigated through proven measures as used for other
development projects as determined by third-party professionals. The City of Palm Desert has
completed many Initial Studies in recent years and to our knowledge all developments that are
consistent with the General Plan have completed either a MND or a simple Negative Declaration
with no mitigation measures. The only projects that we are aware of that completed EIR’s are
the University Park development and DSRT Surf development as these had major changes to the
General Plan. The Project is in full compliance with the General Plan, Housing Element and
Municipal Zoning Code and the Project is only building slightly over 50% of the density allowed
in the General Plan, which any updates to the General Plan went through the appropriate
environmental analysis to set the allowed uses and densities.
We request that the City of Palm Desert place us on the January 12, 2023, City Council meeting
to hear this matter. We also request that the City of Palm request actual evidence from the
Appellant as currently they have failed to provide any evidence to support their claim. The
Appellant should be required to provide this information by December 29, 2022, in order to give
us an opportunity to appropriately respond to the supposed “substantial evidence” and allow
you the time to update the staff report as needed. Hayes Dietrich and our development team will
respond expeditiously to these claims to assist staff in preparation of the January 12, 2023, City
Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Cody Dietrich
President of Development
Co-Founder
Hayes Dietrich, LLC
Cody@hayesdietrich.com
Item 3B - Page 268
Item 3B - Page 269
Item 3B - Page 270
Item 3B - Page 271
Item 3B - Page 272
Item 3B - Page 273
Item 3B - Page 274
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Telephone: (760) 346-0611
Fax: (760) 776-6417
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
City Project No: Case No. PP 22-0006
Lead Agency
Name and Address: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Phone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 776-6417
Project Location: 18.3 Acres at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue
APNs 620-400-030 and -031
Applicant: Mr. Cody Dietrich
Hayes Dietrich, LLC.
5021 Vernon Avenue, Suite 201
Edina, MN 55436
General Plan Designation:
Existing: Town Center Neighborhood (up to 40 du/ac)
Proposed: Town Center Neighborhood (22 du/ac)
Zoning Designation:
Existing: Planned Residential (P.R. 4.0 – 40.0 du/ac)
Proposed: Planned Residential (P.R. 22 du/ac)
Project Description:
The project proposes the development of a residential community consisting of up to 402 units. The project is
located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue in the
City of Palm Desert. The project proposes 13, three-story residential buildings, a clubhouse, fitness center,
community pools, and open space areas, in addition to paved drive aisles and pathways, landscaping, and
approximately 671 parking stalls. Vehicular access to the site will occur from two points along Portola Avenue
(east) and one point at Frank Sinatra Drive (north). The Frank Sinatra Drive access will have one right-out access
(exit only), while Portola Avenue will have one right-out access (exit only) and one right-in/right-out/left-in access
along Portola Avenue.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project’s northern boundary is delineated by Frank Sinatra
Drive. The eastern boundary is delineated by Portola Avenue, and the western boundary is delineated by
combination transmission and distribution power poles and a Southern California Edison dirt-road easement, as
Item 3B - Page 275
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 2
well as two maintenance buildings and associated parking lot at th e southwest corner of the project. A residential
neighborhood is located north of the project; Desert Willow Golf Resort and the Retreat at Desert Willow
Condominium are located east of the project; and vacant land is located west of the project.
The apartment project will include eleven, 3-story buildings with 24 dwelling units each, one, 3-story with 21
dwelling units, and one, 3-story building with 109 dwelling units. The building type, units, and area is indicated in
the Table 1 below.
Table 1 Residential Building Unit and Area
Type Total Units
11 Buildings, 3-Stories
24 dwelling units each 264 units
1 Building, 3-Stories
21 dwelling unit 21 units
1 Building, 3-Stories
109 dwelling units 109 units
Total 394 units
The project’s architecture and design aesthetic will be visually complementary to the existing residential and
condominium communities in the City of Palm Desert, including those recently developed east of the project site at
the Retreat at Desert Willow. The proposed residential buildings will be three stories and consist of neutral colors
(i.e., beige, tan, brown, rust, and white) that complement the natural surrounding landscape and desert environment.
Building materials such as stone veneer, metal panels, and metal trellises will enhance the building façade by
providing variations in texture. The proposed clubhouse building will be one story and include similar color scheme
to the residential structures. The features and characteristics of the proposed buildings are intended to establish an
attractive architectural presence while providing a desirable environment for residents. As such, the placement,
scale and massing of the proposed structures are expected to replace an unimproved site with a developed
environment and unified visual character. The site design incorporates context sensitivity in its setback, orientation,
and placement of structures, particularly in relation to the presence of neighboring residential uses. The property
boundaries are designed to accommodate the residential units. The landscaping design in the project interior, along
its edges, and frontage will include a mixture of trees, palms, shrubs and groundcover plantings to serve as an
enhancement to the site design and streetscape.
The project site is located within the City’s Planned Residential zone and Town Center Neighborhood land use
designations. The 2016 GP EIR indicates that the City will see an increase of 7,365 households by the General Plan
Buildout scenario year of 2040. The proposed project will contribute 394 dwelling units on approximately 18.3
acres. The proposed density of the project is 21.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The maximum density allowed
and analyzed under the General Plan land use designation for the project site is 7.0 to 40 du/ac (page 30 of the 2016
General Plan). Utilization of the maximum density could result in a project with approximately 732 Dwelling Units.
The project is proposing 338 dwelling units below the allowable maximum, reducing the total City increase
attributed to buildout. Additionally, the subject property is located on vacant infill land within the City, therefore,
it can be assumed that construction of the project would assist in buildout of the City.
Document Purpose and Scope
This Subsequent MND/Initial Study tiers off the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University
Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR), SCH #2015081020 which is
available for review at the City’s Offices (73-510 Fred Waring Drive) or at the City Website
(https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/departments/planning/general-plan). The prior Program General Plan EIR
confirmed that all environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the General Plan Update would be
less than significant with the imposition of appropriate mitigation, with the exception of Greenhouse Gas and
Item 3B - Page 276
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 3
Transportation impacts, which were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. The Program General Plan
EIR is incorporated into this document in its entirety by this reference.
Because the proposed project is within the scope of the previously certified Program General Plan EIR, and
consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), this subsequent MND/Initial Study has
been prepared to examine the proposed project in the light of the General Plan EIR in order to determine if the
proposed project would result in any impacts greater than those previously analyzed and disclosed. Mitigation
Measures imposed by the City through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will be applied to this
project, if approved. The MMRP is attached hereto as Appendix A.
To the extent the impacts of the proposed project are already fully analyzed and accounted for in the General Plan
EIR, this MND/Initial Study will not further discuss the applicable resource areas. Consistent with State CEQA
Guidelines § 15168, this MND/Initial Study provides the site-specific analysis anticipated by the General Plan EIR
as to the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Populatio n and Housing,
Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Finally, as depicted in the Initial Study’s significance checkboxes for each resource only those resources for which
site-specific mitigation (beyond that already imposed through the Program General Plan EIR) are imposed are
identified as “less than significant with mitigation.” Impacts to all other resources are either “less than significant”
or “no impact” with the imposition, as applicable, of the mitigation measures previo usly adopted and imposed by
the City through the certified General Plan EIR and MMRP.
Land Use and Setting
North – Frank Sintra Drive; Single Family Residential Community
East – Portola Avenue; Desert Willow Golf Course and the Retreat at Desert Willow Condominiums
South – Portola Avenue; Maintenance buildings and associated parking lot
West – Southern California Edison easement; Vacant land
Other Public Agencies who’s Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement):
• Coachella Valley Water District
• State Water Resource Control Board
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
Item 3B - Page 277
I-10
HWY 111
VAR
N
E
R
R
D
RAMON RD
COOK STBOB HOPE DRCOUNTRY CLUB DR
HOVLEY LN
PORTOLA AVEFRED WARING DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
GERALD FORD DRMONTEREY AVEDINAH SHORE DR
ELDORADO DR42ND AVE
WASHINGTON ST
MILES AVEOASIS CLUB DRPINES TO PALMS HWYMORNINGSIDE DRHOVLEY LN
VARNER R
D
I-10
MONTEREY AVEELDORADO DRPALM DESERTPALM DESERT
RANCHO MIRAGERANCHO MIRAGE
INDIAN WELLSINDIAN WELLS
CATHEDRAL CITYCATHEDRAL CITY
LA QUINTALA QUINTAVICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT SITE
0 5,000
FT
FRANK SINATRA & PORTOLA MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
Item 3B - Page 278
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT SITE
0 240
FT
FRANK SINATRA & PORTOLA MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
APNS: 620-400-030 & 620-400-031
Item 3B - Page 279
SITE PLANEXHIBIT 3FRANK SINATRA& PORTOLAMULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
NOPARKI
N
GNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING
NOPARKINGNOPARKING FRANK SINATRA DRIVEPROP. BUILDING 1TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)EX. C/LPROP. BUILDING 2TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 3TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 4TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 5TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 6TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 7TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 8TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 9TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 10TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 11TYPE "D"9,819 SF (1ST FLOOR)9,819 SF (2ND FLOOR)9,819 SF (3RD FLOOR)29,457 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 12TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 13TYPE "E"44,361 SF (1ST FLOOR)44,361 SF (2ND FLOOR)44,361 SF (3RD FLOOR)133,083 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 14LEASING / CLUBHOUSE17,311 SFPROP.BUILDING 15FITNESS2,553 SF (1ST FLR)2,049 SF (2ND FLR)4,602 SF (TOTAL)32.8'39.8'43.7'45.1'42.8'31.4'33.2'34.5'17.8'20.5'30.5'20.5'16.2'18'30'18'PoolDog Park /RetentionSpaYogaLawnPool21.8'18'32'PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. CURB & GUTTER11.5'22.8'63'20'32.6'46.3'10.9'18'30'18'13.9'55.6'309.6'17'20.5'74.1'14.9'20.5'45.1'23.6'30.6'24'10'24'29.1'PROP. ENTRYKIOSK16'18'30.5'20.5'EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)30'30'18'20.4'18'30'18'20.5'20.5'26.9'23'36'23'20'26'128'20.5'30'20.5'26.4'18'30'18'22.8'24'EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)PROP. SIGNAGEPROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)29'29'PORTOLA AVENUEN 27°46'33" E 840.48'N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'N 89°52'08" E 686.08'N 04°19'04" E 58.45'=23°27'29" R=1937.00' L=793.05'=11°29'14" R=1863.00' L=373.51'N 47°57'11" W29.27'117.2'59.4'21.6'21.6'21.6'18'30.5'20.5'23.1'9'TYP.18'29.4'30'20.5'39.8'68.1'19.5'20.5'30'20.5'21.9'22'18'18'21.4'15.2'18'30'81.2'60.3'20.5'Park10'PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)10'PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)10'EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGEDWITH FINAL DESIGN PLANSPROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)EXISTING GROSS ACREAGELAND USE DESCRIPTION:LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS6.85 AC.299,070 SF38%TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA)4.40 AC.191,203 SF24%6.90 AC.300,538 SF 38%GARAGES, ACCESS ROADS, HARDSCAPE & PARKING18.31 AC.ACREAGE797,567 SFSF-PERCENTAGE- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (5, 7-9 & 12)- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (4, 6 & 10)53,760 SF32,499 SF1.23 AC.0.75 AC.--PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION0.16 AC.6,756 SF-(FRANK SINATRA DRIVE)PROPOSED NET ACREAGE18.15 AC.790,811 SF100%- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (1-3) 30,900 SF 0.71 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (11) 9,819 SF 0.23 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (13)44,361 SF 1.02 AC. -- PROPOSED LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (14) 17,311 SF 0.40 AC. -- PROPOSED FITNESS BUILDING (15)2,553 SF 0.06 AC. -BUILDING DESCRIPTION:STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12) 3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13)LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 14)1 STORY3 STORYFITNESS BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 15)2 STORYN.T.S.Item 3B - Page 280
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
________________________________________________________
Signature
City of Palm Desert
__________________
Date
_______________________________________________________
Printed Name
City of Palm Desert
__________________
For
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Item 3B - Page 281
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 8
Environmental Checklist and Discussion:
The following checklist evaluates the proposed project’s potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics
for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is
presented followed by an analysis of the project’s potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any
potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are
described.
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning or other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert General Plan Environmental Impact Report; Palm Desert Municipal Code.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The perception and uniqueness of scenic vistas and visual character can vary
according to location and composition of its surrounding context. The subjective value of views is generally
influenced by the presence and intensity of neighboring man–made improvements, such as structures, overhead
utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic quality offered by a natural background, such as open
space, mountain ranges, or a landmark feature. The proximity and massing of structures, vegetation an d other
visual barriers interacts with the visibility of surrounding environments to restrict or enhance local characteristic
views. The assessment of scenic value also considers the compatibility of proposed projects in relation to areas,
land uses or vantage points where the enjoyment of scenic vistas may exist, such as scenic roads or residential
areas.
The proposed project is located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land south of Frank Sinatra Drive, and
west of Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. The project property is roughly triangular in shape and
presently vacant and undeveloped. Currently, the project site exhibits a predominantly flat condition with
scattered vegetative coverage, primarily associated with the Sonoran creosote bush scrub community. Overall,
there are no salient topographic features or other natural visual landmarks on the project site, and the onsite
characteristics and physical features do not contribute to a unique scenic vista.
The project’s boundaries are immediately surrounded by Frank Sinatra Drive to the north, Portola Avenue to
the east, and maintenance facility and parking lot to the south, and vacant, undeveloped land to the west. An
existing single-family residential community is located north of the project (separated by Frank Sinatra Drive),
while the golf course residential community, Desert Willow Golf Resort and the Retreat at Desert Willow
Condominiums, is located east of project (separated by Portola Avenue).
Item 3B - Page 282
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 9
According to the Palm Desert General Plan (PDGP), the hillsides and mountains surrounding the Coachella
Valley are considered a visual resource. The San Jacinto Mountains to the west, the San Gorgonio Mountains
to the northwest, the San Bernardino Mountains, Little San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills to the north,
and the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south create the panoramic mountain views in the Coachella Valley. The
San Jacinto Mountain range extends from its highest elevation at Mount San Jacinto, reaching an elevation
10,804 feet above sea level. The San Gorgonio peak is the highest peak in the region and rises to an elevation
of 11,502 feet. The Santa Rosa Mountain’s highest peak is classified as Toro Peak which rises to 8,717 feet. In
Palm Desert, views of the San Jacinto Mountains to the west and the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south are
prevalent throughout the City, depending on viewpoint and location. At the project property, the views of the
San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains are visible, however, base views are partially obstructed by existing
developments, man-made structures and utilities, and landscape. Peak and mid-range views of these mountains
are visible throughout the site. The San Gorgonio Mountains to the northwest and the San Bernardino
Mountains, Little San Bernardino Mountains, and Indio Hills to the north are distant and obstructed by existing
structures and landscaping.
As previously stated, the project proposes up to 402 units residential units, recreational amenities, and
associated improvements on approximately 18.3 acres. The residential units are proposed along the northern
and eastern property boundaries and will consist of three-story buildings. The proposed amenities will be
located along the southern and western boundaries of the site, thus, hidden from the public viewpoint (i.e.,
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Drive rights-of-way). In its current state, the project does not impair views of
the surrounding scenic vista due to its vacant character. The development of the project will partially obstruct
views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south, when viewed from Frank Sinatra Drive, and views of the San
Jacinto Mountains to the west, when viewed from Portola Avenue. When observed from local roadways, the
views of the surrounding mountain ranges are visible and partially obstructed, depending on viewpoint location.
The following discussion analyzes the project’s potential impact on the surrounding scenic vistas from public
viewsheds north of the site and east of the site.
Views Observed from the North
Areas north of the project site includes the Frank Sinatra Drive right -of-way, and single family residential
homes. From these locations, views of the Santa Rosa Mountains (to the south) are primarily unobstructed, due
to the vacant character of the project site. The rear of the existing single family residences (i.e., backyards) are
oriented to the south, adjacent to Frank Sinatra Drive. Therefore, from the residence’s backyards, views of the
Santa Rosa Mountains are distant and are primarily obstructed by large transmission/distribution combination
utility poles, landscaping, and 6-foot block walls separating the residential properties from the right-of-way.
The top of the project buildings may be visible from the residential properties to the north, however, the project
is not likely to obstruct the view of the mountains since they are distant and already obstructed by existing
manmade features.
Motorists and pedestrians traveling along Frank Sinatra Drive have primarily unobstructed views of the Santa
Rosa Mountains along the segment adjacent to the project. The project, which proposes three-story residential
buildings along the Frank Sinatra Drive frontage, would result in visual obstructions of the Santa Rosa
Mountains, however these obstructions would be brief, until the motorist passes the project site. Additionally,
building setbacks and separation between each building will create visual relief for the motorist or pedestrian.
Impacts of the project would be less than significant.
Views Observed from the East
Motorists traveling along Portola Avenue have primarily unobstructed views of the San Jacinto Mountains
along the segment adjacent to the project. This is due to the vacant character of the project site and the property
west of the project. Development of the proposed project would result in obstructions of the San Jacinto
Mountains when viewed from Portola Avenue, however these obstructions would be brief, until the motorist
passes the project site. Additionally, building setbacks and separation between each building will create visual
relief for motorists or pedestrians.
Item 3B - Page 283
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 10
The existing residential structures east of the site are two stories and have primarily unobstructed views of the
San Jacinto Mountains depending on viewpoint location. Obstructions to these views include the existing block
walls and landscaping separating the residences from Portola Avenue. Compared to the existing conditions, the
project, which proposes three-story residential buildings, could result in the partial obstruction of base and mid-
range views of the mountains. However, peak views would still be visible. Additionally, the project is
developing a residential community in compliance with the land use and zoning designations for the project
site.
The project is located within the City’s Planned Residential (PR) zoning designation. The maximum building
height in a PR district shall be 40 feet or three-stories, whichever is less, or as approved by the Planning
Commission. According to the architectural plans, the proposed clubhouse will be one story, the fitness center
will be two-stories, and the residential buildings will be three stories. The proposed buildings vary in height
along the top of the buildings, with the elevator overrun being the highest point, followed by the masonry, and
the parapets. The residential buildings will vary between 37 to 42 feet in height (above grade). Thus, the
proposed buildings exceed the maximum building height established by the City in PR zones by 2 feet.
Therefore, the project is compliant with the City zoning designation. Additionally, the project setbacks and
building heights will be compliant with PR zones (see discussion c for further analysis). Overall, the project
will not result in substantial impacts to the scenic vistas.
The proposed structures are expected to replace a vacant and unimproved site; however, the project is not
anticipated to impair surrounding views of the scenic vistas due to the placement, scale and massing of the
proposed structures. In conformance with Chapter 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Decisions by the
Architectural Review Commission), the proposed design features of the project are intended to establish a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, by incorporating a balanced composition
of materials, textures, and colors. The project will comply with the City’s Municipal Code guidelines, and
standards for Planned Residential zones and Town Center Neighborhood land use designations. Impacts will
be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The undeveloped project property exhibits relatively flat topography with
vegetation coverage. The vacant project land lacks any natural landmarks, historic buildings, trees, or rock
outcroppings. Project implementation would introduce a landscaping design in the interior, edges and frontage
to enhance its visibility in a manner that concords with the surrounding developments and is consistent with the
intended physical character for the Town Center Neighborhood land use designation identified in the 2016
General Plan (2016 General Plan, p. 34).
A review of the California Scenic Highway Mapping System web site operated by Caltrans, revealed that the
project is not located adjacent to or near any state or county, eligible or designated scenic highway. The purpose
of the State Scenic Highway Program is to preserve and protect scenic State highway corridors from change
that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State highways can be officially
designated as Scenic Highways or be determined to be eligible for designation. The status of a state scenic
highway changes from eligible to “officially designated” when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor
protection program and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approves the designation as a
Scenic Highway. According to the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan Update, the
nearest State Designated Scenic Highway is Highway 74, located approximately 3.30 miles southwest of the
project. Based on distance, the proposed site plan, architectural design, and landscaping design would not result
in in adverse impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway or other local transportation corridor.
Less than significant impacts are expected.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The undeveloped project property is located within a relatively developed area
in the City of Palm Desert. Areas north and east of the project are developed with residential communities,
while undeveloped lots are located west and northeast of the project. The vacant lot northeast of the project is
Item 3B - Page 284
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 11
located under an approved specific plan (University Neighborhood Specific Plan). Overall, the project is
surrounded by existing infrastructure (roadways, utilities, etc.), therefore, this discussion will analyze the
project’s compliance with the City zoning governing scenic quality.
As previously stated, the project is located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land at the southwest corner
of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The project site, and areas immediately north, east, south, and west,
are located within the City’s Town Center Neighborhood, as established in the General Plan. The Town Center
Neighborhood is intended to provide moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development that features a
variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and mixed uses. Buildings within Town Center Neighborhoods are
set back from the sidewalk to provide small to moderate front yards with porches and terraces except in mixed-
use areas where buildings are near or at the sidewalk to support outdoor dining and easy view of storefronts.
Buildings are a variety of housing choices up to 3 stories and mixed-use buildings up to 3 stories focused at key
intersections and/or public open space.
The zoning designation for the project site is established as Planned Residential (PR). The purpose of PR
districts is to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design,
and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities
(4.0—40.0 dwelling units/acre), mixed housing types, and community facilities. The district is characterized as
providing for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments and is organized
around formal, walkable, and highly connected streetscapes (Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
25.10.020(G)). Per 25.10.050(B), Development Standards, in the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), the
maximum building height in a PR district shall be 40 feet or three-story, whichever is less, or as approved by
the Planning Commission. The project structures will not exceed two stories. As stated in discussion a), the
proposed clubhouse will be one story, the fitness building will be two stories, and the residential buildings will
be three stories and will vary between 37 and 42 feet in height. The tallest point of the building will be 42 feet
in height at the elevator overrun. The second tallest point of the building is the masonry and will be 40 feet in
height, while the parapet shielding the mechanical equipment will be 36 feet 4 inches in height. Therefore, a
portion of the building will exceed the maximum building height established by the City in PR zones (40 feet).
However, this will only occur at one area of the building, where elevator infrastructure is required. The buildings
will vary in height to create visual interest and non-monotonous building heights. Additionally, the project will
be subject to a Site Plan Review and Architectural Review. The Site Plan Review will be conducted by Planning
Department staff before a building permit is issued for any development in the PR district. The Site Plan Review
will ensure that aesthetic considerations are addressed in the design. In conformance with Chapter 25.68 of the
PDMC (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission), the proposed design features of the project are
intended to establish a desirable environment for its occupants, resi dents, and surrounding neighbors.
The project’s architecture and design aesthetic will be visually complementary to the existing residential and
condominium communities throughout the City. The proposed structures will consist of neutral colors (i.e.,
beige, tan, brown, orange) that complement the natural surrounding landscape and desert environment. External
materials will consist of stone veneer, stucco, and metal trellis. Additionally, the parapets will obstruct views
of roof-top facilities (i.e., air conditioning units). The features and characteristics of the proposed buildings are
intended to establish an attractive architectural presence while providing a desirable environment for residents.
The site design incorporates context sensitivity in its setback, orientation, and placement of structures,
particularly in relation to the presence of residential uses in the area. The property boundaries are designed to
accommodate the residential units. The landscaping design in the project interior, along its edges, and frontage
will include a mixture of trees, palms, shrubs and groundcover plantings to serve as an enhancement to the site
design and streetscape. The exhibits below show illustrate renderings of the proposed project.
Item 3B - Page 285
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 12
Exhibit I-3 Project from Frank Sinatra Dr. and Portola Ave. Intersection
Exhibit I-4 Proposed Building Frontages
Item 3B - Page 286
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 13
Exhibit I-4 Proposed Building Frontages
The project proposes residential housing and associated amenities that are consistent with existing residential
communities in the City. As stated throughout this discussion, the project complies with the land use and zoning
designations established by the City. With the compliance of City standards, the project is not expected to
conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing the scenic quality of the site, therefore, less than
significant impacts are anticipated.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The project property lacks any structural or lighting improvements; therefore,
it does not constitute an existing source of glare or light. In the project surroundings, the nearest existing sources
of fixed nighttime lighting can be attributed to the existing residential units located north of the project (north
of Frank Sinatra Drive) and east of the project (east of Portola Avenue). Lighting associated with residential
communities typically consist of low-intensity, wall-mounted, downward-oriented fixtures in the common
areas, patios, side and front yards of homes. Dim lighting in the area may include pole-mounted light fixtures
primarily oriented downward to cover light signage, sidewalks, and paths, as well as landscape lighting. Frank
Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue are the closest roadways to the project site. These roadways are improved
with street light posts or illuminated traffic signals, and day-time glare and nighttime lighting can be attributed
to existing vehicular traffic.
The proposed project would utilize the vacant property for the development of up to 402 dwelling units. The
project also proposes a clubhouse, pools, fitness area, dog park, recreational courts, open space areas, and
grills/fire pits, in addition to paved drive aisles and pathways, and landscaping. The project will be consistent
with the physical character intended for Town Center Neighborhood land uses per page 30 of the City’s 2016
General Plan. The project includes nighttime lighting to safely illuminate the site entrances, signage, parking,
walkways and other project features with the appropriate fixtures in accordance with Chapter 24.16 (City’s
Outdoor Lighting Requirements) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. These requirements are established to
ensure that proposed development includes a minimum uniformity of light coverage, while minimizing light
trespass. Sources of low-intensity lighting will consist of wall-mounted fixtures for the dwelling unit exteriors
and landscaping illumination throughout the interior walkways.
Item 3B - Page 287
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 14
All proposed fixtures will conform to the examples of acceptable lighting fixtures included in the City’s Outdoor
Lighting Requirements. Being in a planned residential zone, all proposed light posts will have a maximum
height of 18 feet and the lamp lumens shall be fifteen thousand lumens or less with full-cutoff features. The
project’s lighting plan and proposed fixtures will be subject to review and approval by the City of Palm Desert.
Pertaining to glare and reflectivity, the proposed residential structures are expected to have neutral-colored
finishes that do not have highly reflective properties or other surface conditions that would cause subs tantial
daytime or nighttime glare. With the proposed landscape plan that includes a strategic placement of trees,
palms, shrubs, groundcover, and accent plantings, the potential visibility of nighttime light sources and building
surfaces is expected to be partially screened. Less than significant impacts are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 288
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 15
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES –
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert General Plan Environmental Impact Report; California Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program, California Department of Conservation, 2016.
a-e) No Impact. The proposed project is located within an urbanized area of the City of Palm Desert. There are no
farmlands in the vicinity of the project as designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. The project area is defined as “Other Land,” which is considered land in any
other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland,
and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquacult ure facilities; strip
mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on
all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. Areas surrounding the
project site is generally defined as “Urban and Built-up Land,” which is land occupied by structures with a
building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. The project is
not located on lands zoned for agriculture and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. There are no areas
of forest land; timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production within the desert area. Therefore, the
proposed project will have no impact on agricultural resources.
Mitigation: None required
Item 3B - Page 289
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 16
3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management district or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Sources: Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by SCAQMD, March 2017; Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10
State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), by SCAQMD, August 2003; Analysis of the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan, by the California Air Resources Board, February 2010; South Coast AQMD Rule Book;
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0, California Air Pollution Officers Association
(CAPCOA) and California Air Districts.
Summary of Existing Air Quality Regulatory Framework:
The project site and Coachella Valley regional context are situated within the Riverside County portion of the Salton
Sea Air Basin (SSAB), under jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the
adopted 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). The 2016 AQMP serves as a regional blueprint toward
achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS) with the most current strategies to effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and minimize any
negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The 2016 AQMP also accounts for information and
assumptions from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to support
the integration of land use and transportation toward meeting the federal Clean Air Act requirements. Local air
quality in relation to the applicable standards for criteria air pollutants is measured three established Coachella
Valley monitoring stations that are part of the SCAQMD Monitoring Network Plan: Palm Springs (AQS ID
060655001), Indio (AQS ID 060652002), and Mecca (Saul Martinez - AQS ID 060652005). The 2016 AQMP also
provides guidance for the State Implementation Plans (SIP) for attainment of the applicable ambient air quality
standards.
Particulate Matter (PM10):
As indicated in the 2016 AQMP, the Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area for
PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). In the Coachella Valley, the man -
made sources of PM10 are attributed to direct emissions, industrial facilities, and fugitive dust resulting from
unpaved roads and construction operations. High-wind natural events are also known contributors of PM10. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires those states with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit the corresponding State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to demonstrate how these areas will attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The implementation strategies include modeling, rules, regulations, and programs designed to provide
the necessary air pollutant emissions reductions.
Pertaining to PM10 attainment, the Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) was
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 14, 2005. It incorporated updated
planning assumptions, fugitive dust source emissions estimates, mobile source emissions estimates, and attainment
modeling with control strategies and measure commitments. Some of those measures are reflected in SCAQMD
Item 3B - Page 290
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 17
Rules 403 and 403.1, which are enacted to reduce or prevent man-made fugitive dust sources with their associated
PM10 emissions. The CVSIP established the controls needed to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards
such those listed below:
• Additional stabilizing or paving of unpaved surfaces, including parking lots;
• A prohibition on building new unpaved roads;
• Requiring more detailed dust control plans from builders in the valley that specify the use of more
aggressive and frequent watering, soil stabilization, wind screens, and phased development (as opposed to
mass grading) to minimize fugitive dust;
• Designating a worker to monitor dust control at construction sites; and
• Testing requirements for soil and road surfaces.
On February 25, 2010, the ARB approved the 2010 Coachella Valley PM10 Maintenance Plan and transmitted it to
the U.S. EPA for approval. With the recent data being collected at the Coachella Valley monitoring stations,
consideration of high-wind exceptional events, and submittal of a PM10 Re-designation Request and Maintenance
Plan, a re-designation to attainment status of the PM10 NAAQS is deemed feasible in the near future according to
the 2016 AQMP.
Ozone and Ozone Precursors:
The Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) is deemed to be in nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. Coachella Valley is unique in its geography due to its location downwind from the South
Coast Air Basin (SCAB). As such, when high levels of ozone are formed in the South Coast Air Basin, they are
transported to the Coachella Valley. Similarly, when ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted from mobile sources and stationary sources located in the South Coast Air
Basin, they are also transported to the Coachella Valley. It is worth noting that SCAQMD has determined that local
sources of air pollution generated in the Coachella Valley have a limited impact on ozone levels compared to the
transport of ozone precursors generated in SCAB.
The U.S. EPA classifies areas of ozone nonattainment (i.e., Extreme, Severe, Serious, Moderate or Marginal) based
on the extent to which an area exceeds the air quality standard for that pollutant. The higher the exceedance level,
the more time is allowed to demonstrate attainment in recognition of the greater challenge involved. However,
nonattainment areas with the higher classifications are also subject to more stringent requirements. In the 2016
AQMP, the attainment target date for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was listed as June 15, 2019. However, based
on recent data for higher levels of ozone experienced in 2017 and 2018, it was determined that the Coachella Valley
region could not practically attain the said standard by the established deadline. Given that additional time is needed
to bring the Coachella Valley into attainment of the ozone standard, SCAQMD submitted a formal request to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to reclassify the Coachella Valley from Severe-15 to
Extreme nonattainment, with a new attainment date of June 15, 2024. The reclassification ensures that the Coachella
Valley will be given the needed extension to make attainment feasible and prevent the imposition of the non -
attainment fees on major stationary sources. This process would also require SCAQMD to develop or update the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) documentation to demonstrate how the area will meet the standard on or before
June 15, 2024.
SCAQMD continues to reduce ozone and improve air quality in the Coachella Valley, in part by providing more
than $50 million in grant funding towards paving dirt roads and parking lots, clean energy projects and cleaner
vehicles. Future emission reductions anticipated to occur in the South Coast Air Basin associated with current and
planned regulations on mobile and stationary sources are expected to contribute to improvements in ozone air
quality in the Coachella Valley and lead to attainment of the standard.
Item 3B - Page 291
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 18
a) Less than Significant Impact: This analysis relies in part on the quantitative results of running the most current
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0), which is computer software developed
in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and California Air
Districts to calculate criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from land use projects using widely
accepted methodologies. Sources of these methodologies and data include, but are not limited to, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors, California Air Resources Board
(CARB) vehicle emission models, studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle. In addition, some local air districts provided customized values for their
data and existing regulation methodologies for use for projects located in their jurisdictions.
Air quality impacts can be deemed significant if the estimated project emissions demonstrate a potential to
contribute or cause regional and/or localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality
standards, such as the NAAQS and CAAQS. To assist lead agencies in determining the significance of air
quality impacts from land development projects, SCAQMD established quantitative short-term construction-
related and long-term operational impact thresholds (South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds).
Table III-1 below displays these numeric thresholds applicable to construction and operational activities to
which the project-specific air emissions results will be compared.
Table III-1 SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds (Pounds/Day)
Emission Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction or Operation 550 75 100 150 150 55
Source: Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook and SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019
The project specific CalEEMod 2020.4.0 analysis accounted for the proposed development parameters (land
uses and facility dimensions) as model inputs for calculating the associated criteria air pollutants. These
involved a conservative count of 402 low-rise apartment units (rather than the proposed 394), private
clubhouse/fitness facilities totaling 22,000 square feet, two private swimming pools, and parking stalls per th e
site plan. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (220) and daily trip generation rate
are consistent with the Traffic Analysis for this project. The total parking stalls are divided into four categories:
structure, garage, carport, and open spaces since they all have different construction implications. The
associated household size input was 2.05 persons per household based on the most recent CA Department of
Finance numbers (Jan 2021) available at the time of preparation.
The AQIA findings included in Table III-2 below demonstrate that the unmitigated criteria air pollutant
emissions resulting from project construction activities, such as site preparation, grading, utilities/building
construction, paving, and architectural coating, will not exceed the applicable SCAQMD Air Quality
Significance Thresholds for criteria pollutants, including PM10 and Ozone precursors. As a standard
requirement, dust control measures will be implemented during construction as part of a City-approved fugitive
dust control plan in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403/403.1 and Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter
24.12. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for the construction-related emissions in relation to the
applicable South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
Item 3B - Page 292
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 19
Table III-2
Short Term Air Pollutant Emissions
Associated With Construction of the Proposed Project (Unmitigated)
(Pounds/Day)
ROG/VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Peak Emissions
Resulting from
Site Preparation,
Grading, Building
Construction, Paving,
and Architectural Coating
68.9196 55.0046 33.2465 0.1362 7.3060 4.4532
SCAQMD Air Quality
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Note: The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions account for required compliance with Chapter 24.12 (Fugitive
Dust (PM10) Control) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and SCAQMD Rules 403/403.1.
CalEEMod 2020.4.0 was also used to calculate the long-term operational air pollutant emissions that would
occur during the life of the project. These operations include area, energy and mobile sources. As shown in
Table III-3 below, the project-related operational emissions of criteria pollutants are also not expected to exceed
any of the South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant impact
is expected for operational emissions from the project.
Table III-3
Long Term Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Associated With Development of the Project (Unmitigated)
(Pounds/Day)
Emission Source ROG/VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Peak Area Sources,
Energy Use, Mobile
Sources
18.3187
9.8971
92.7226
0.1386
13.2098
3.8140
SCAQMD Air Quality
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
In addition to the emission levels discussed above, another measure of determining consistency with the
governing AQMP is outlined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (1993), as provided and evaluated below:
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air
quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
The relevant emission standards are compiled in the South Coast AQMD Air Quality Signif icance Thresholds
and also provided in Table III-1 pertaining to construction and operation. As demonstrated by the CalEEMod
results in Tables III-3 and III-4, the proposed project would not result in emission levels exceeding the AQMD
Air Quality Significance Thresholds for any criteria air pollutant category, including PM10 and ozone
precursors, and therefore would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.
Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of
project build-out phase.
Item 3B - Page 293
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 20
The proposed residential development is designed in accordance with the City’s land use, zoning, and
development standards. Therefore, the project will not exceed the locally adopted land development
assumptions and therefore would be consistent with the land use and growth projections factored into the 2016
AQMP.
In summary, the project is not expected to result in emission levels, growth or land use changes that would
interfere with the City or region’s ability to comply with the most current air quality plans including the 2016
AQMP and State Implementation Plan strategies for PM10 and ozone level attainment efforts. Moreover, the
project’s short-term construction and long-term operational emissions would not exceed the established
regional thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions. Pertaining to the obstruction of an applicable air quality
plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin
(SSAB) was formerly classified as “Severe-15” nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2019. Over the past 15 years, the air quality in the
Coachella Valley has steadily improved because of the implementation of emission control measures by
SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (CARB). However, in 2017 and 2018, higher ozone levels were
experienced throughout the State of California due to changes in meteorology, biogenic emissions, and/or
anthropogenic emissions. As a result of the higher ozone experienced in 2017 and 2018, it was determined that
the Coachella Valley could not practically attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the 2019 deadline. The
inability to attain the standard is largely due to weather conditions that are impacting no t only the Coachella
Valley and the South Coast Air Basin, but the entire State of California and Western United States. As a result,
SCAQMD requested a reclassification that would extend the attainment deadline to June of 2024. The
reclassification has allowed South Coast AQMD up to five years to reach attainment. SCAQMD has prepared
additional documentation and will be implementing additional measures to comply with the June 2024 deadline.
Current and planned regulations on mobile and stationary sources are expected to contribute to improvements
to ozone air quality in the Coachella Valley.
As demonstrated in tables III-2 and III-3, project-related short-term construction and long-term operational
emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for ozone
precursors, such as NOx and ROG/VOC. By complying with the adopted thresholds, the proposed development
is also complying with the overall attainment strategies reflected in the currently adopted 2016 AQMP.
Furthermore, the Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area for PM10 (particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). The U.S. EPA-approved Coachella Valley PM10
State Implementation Plan is in place with an attainment strategy for meeting the PM10 standard. Some of the
existing measures include the requirement of detailed dust control plans from builders that specify the use of
more aggressive and frequent watering, soil stabilization, wind screens, and phased development to minimize
fugitive dust.
Per Chapter 24.12 (Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, a Fugitive Dust Control
Plan must be prepared and approved prior to any earth-moving operations. Implementation of the Fugitive Dust
Control Plan is required to occur under the supervision of an individual with training on Dust Control in the
Coachella Valley. The plan will include methods to prevent sediment track -out onto public roads, prevent
visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20-percent opacity, and prevent visible dust emissions from extending
more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line. The
most widely used measures include proper construction phasing, proper maintenance/cleaning of construction
equipment, soil stabilization, installation of track-out prevention devices, and wind fencing. The
implementation of a PM10 Plan during construction of the project site is requir ed by Mitigation Measure AQ-
1. As shown in tables III-2 and III-3, project-related short-term construction and long-term operational
emissions are not expected to exceed the reginal thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for PM10.
Item 3B - Page 294
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 21
Since project-related emissions would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, the Coachella
Valley PM10 (as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1) and Ozone SIP, and all SCAQMD Air Quality
Significance Thresholds, long-term operational air quality impacts associated with the project should not be
considered cumulatively considerable. Less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation are
anticipated.
c) Less than Significant. A sensitive receptor is a person or group in the population particularly susceptible (i.e.,
more susceptible than the population at large) to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Sensitive
receptors and the facilities that house them are of particular concern if they are located in close proximity to
localized sources of carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, or odors. Residences, long-term health care
facilities, schools, rehabilitation centers, playgrounds, convalescent centers, childcare centers, retirement
homes, and athletic facilities are generally considered sensitive receptors.
The SCAQMD has developed and published the Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology
to help identify potential impacts that could contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). LST methodology was developed in response to
environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria
pollutants in local communities. The purpose of analyzing LSTs is to determine whether a project may generate
significant adverse localized air quality impacts in relation to the nearest exposed sensitive receptors, such as
those listed above. LSTs represent the maximum emission levels that comply with the most stringent applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient
concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project, size, and distance to the sensitive receptor.
Therefore, meeting the lowest allowable emissions thresholds translates to meeting the most stringent air quality
standards for a project locality in consideration of sensitive receptors. As part of the LST methodology,
SCAQMD has divided its jurisdiction into 37 source receptor areas (SRAs) which can be used to dete rmine
whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. The proposed development is
located in SRA 30, which covers the Coachella Valley and City of Palm Desert. LSTs only apply to certain
criteria pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) particulate matter equal to or less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).
The project site occurs in a vacant condition and is surrounded by existing development consisting of public
roads, residential neighborhoods, ang golf course development. The nearest residential structures are located
north of Frank Sinatra Drive and east of Portola Avenue respectively. The separation of these dwellings from
the project boundary ranges from approximately 115 to 180 feet. As a result of these distances and to utilize the
most conservative measures, the LST analysis will utilize the shortest separation interval (25 meters/82 feet) as
the basis for analysis. This will ensure that the lowest emissions threshold is used as a standard for determining
significance.
Table III-4
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) Associated with Construction of the
Revised Project with Receptors at 25 Meters (82 Feet), (In Pounds/Day)
Emission Source Nox CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Unmitigated Emissions Resulting from Site
Preparation, Grading, Building Construction, Paving
and Architectural Coating
55.0046 33.2465 7.3060 4.4532
SCAQMD LST Threshold for SRA 30 304 2,292 14 8
LST Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Sources: CalEEMod Results and AQMD LST Look-Up Tables
Note: The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions factor dust control compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and 403.1 and Palm Desert
Municipal Code, Chapter 24.12 as requirements.
Item 3B - Page 295
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 22
The results provided in Table III-4 resulting from the Localized Significance Thresholds methodology
demonstrate that the construction-related emission levels would occur below the established thresholds, taking
into account the source receptor area and nearest sensitive receptor location to the project. Therefore, the project
would not result in emissions capable of exposing sensitive receptors to localized substantial pollutant
concentrations. Moreover, the proposed project would not situate new housing i n a location known to be
exposed to existing or planned sources of substantial emissions. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
d) Less than Significant.
As previously analyzed and disclosed, project implementation would not result in emissions that would exceed
the South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds or Localized Significance Thresholds. The
proposed residential uses and associated private amenities are not expected to include or be located near the
types of facilities or operations commonly known to generate odors, such as wastewater treatment plants,
sanitary landfills, composting/green waste facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical
manufacturing plants, painting/coating operations, rendering plants, or food packaging facilities. Therefore, the
project is not expected to result in odor or other emissions adversely affecting nearby neighbors or a substantial
number of people. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 SCAQMD Rule 403 (403.1 specific to the Coachella Valley): A Dust Control Plan shall be prepared
and implemented by all contractors during all construction activities, including ground disturbance,
grubbing, grading, and materials import and export. Said plan shall include but not be limited to the
following best management practices:
• Treated and stabilized soil where activity will cease for at least four consecutive days;
• All construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds
exceed 25 miles per hour;
• Water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth-moving operations;
• Operate street-sweepers on impacted paved roads adjacent to site;
• Establish and strictly enforce limits of grading for each phase of construction;
• Wash off trucks as they leave the project site to control fugitive dust emissions
• Cover all transported loads of soils, wet materials prior to transport, provide freeboard (space
from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate
matter during transportation
• Use track-out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust
and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic.
Item 3B - Page 296
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 23
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Potentially
Significan
t Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Sources: General and Focused Biological Resources Assessment, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, February 2022;
Palm Desert General Plan, Biological Resources.
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. In February 2022, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants
conducted a project-specific General and Focused Biological Resources Assessment. The assessment area
covered the project site and 100 yards beyond all site boundaries. The biological survey and analyses were
designed to ascertain the impacts of proposed development on the potential biological resources of the project
site and immediate vicinity, as mandated by CEQA and required by the City of Palm Desert.
The specific objectives of the biological survey are listed below:
• Determine the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species that occur on, and immediately adjacent to,
the project site.
• Ascertain the presence of plant or animal species given special status by government agencies, with an
emphasis on sensitive species or communities not covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
• Ascertain the existence of other significant biotic elements, corridors or communities.
• Consider the site’s biological resources as they relate to the CVMSHCP and its Conservation Areas.
Item 3B - Page 297
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 24
• If necessary and where appropriate, recommend measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts of
the project on sensitive species and habitats not covered in the CVMSHCP but determined to occur
within the project boundaries.
Survey methodology included literature, records, collections, website, or staff review to determine resources
that are known to exist within the general area and to determine the possible occurrence of sensitive species.
Records, collections, websites and/or staff of the University of California at Riverside Herbarium, the Boyd
Deep Canyon Desert Research Center and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments were consulted
for specific information as to the occurrence of special-status species. The California Department of Fish &
Game Natural Diversity Database was also consulted.
Field surveys for plant and animal species were initiated in February of 2022. Specific dates of biological
surveys were February 9, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20 and March 5, and 6, 2022. Night surveys were conducted on the
evenings of March 5, and 6, 2022. Plant studies were conducted simultaneously with animal surveys. In
addition, twenty live-animal traps (which capture animals unharmed) for large and small mammals were set
within the Project site for twenty-four-hour periods on March 5, and 6, 2022. Invertebrate sampling was
conducted on the evenings of March 6, and 7, 2022. Two Bioquip Light Traps were used for attracting and live -
capturing flying insects and some terrestrial arthropods.
Surveys were conducted by walking north/south transects at 10 -yard intervals through the project site.
Surrounding properties were privately owned and permission to enter those properties was not granted.
Nevertheless, binocular surveys were conducted from the project site across the vacant land immediately west
of the project site (an abandoned golf course). The survey pattern used is approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for determining the presence or absence of the burrowing owl and desert tortoise and represents an
intensive survey effort that resulted in no officially listed or federal protected species being overlooked within
the project boundaries.
The elevation of the project site is approximately 275 feet above sea level. According to the report, there is no
topographical relief. The environment of the project site is included as part of the sand field habitat of the valley
floor as described in the CVMSHCP.
There are no naturally occurring springs or permanent aquatic habitats within or near the project site boundaries.
No blue-line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on the U.S. Geological Survey maps for the
project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. Soils characteristics are uniform over the entire
site. Surface soil is composed of wind-blown alluvium created by historic and persistent air movements from
the northwest.
The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, published by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS), the CNDDB Special Plan List (2021) or the Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of C alifornia
(2021) list a total of five plant species that could conceivably occur on the project site. They are the glandular
axis, ribbed cryptantha, flat-seeded spurge, Coachella Valley milk vetch, and Salton milkvetch.
The glandular ditaxis is a rare perennial herb that blooms from December through March. It is restricted to
sandy environments in the Sonoran Desert and has been found in the Coachella Valley at elevations like those
found on the project site. Since the glandular ditaxis is a perennial, i t likely would be detected during the plant
surveys. It was not detected and therefore presumed to not occur onsite. The glandular ditaxis is not listed as
rare, threatened, or endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be listed at this
time. Though considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society, the glandular ditaxis is not a covered
species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) .
The ribbed cryptantha is an uncommon ephemeral species known to occur on sandy soils in the Coachella
Valley. The project site can be considered suitable habitat for this species. It was not detected but the surveys
Item 3B - Page 298
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 25
were conducted in November and early December when it is unlikely that this winter- and spring-blooming
species would be detected. The ribbed cryptantha is not listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the
state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be listed at this time. The California Native Plant Society
considers the ribbed cryptantha a sensitive species. It is not a covered species under the CVMSHCP.
The flat-seeded spurge is an extremely rare ephemeral herb known to occur on sandy soils in the Sonoran
Desert. There has been at least one specimen found in the Coachella Valley. The species was not detected but
the surveys were done in November when many ephemerals would not be in evidence. The flat -seeded spurge
is not listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by state or federal governments nor is it propos ed to be listed.
The California Native Plant Society considers it a sensitive species. It is not covered under the CVMSHCP.
The Coachella Valley milk vetch is an uncommon, spring-blooming perennial herb that is known to occur on
sandy soils in the Coachella Valley. No individuals were detected on or near the project site. This subspecies
has been found less than a mile from the project site in similar habitat (Cornett, personal files). Seeds of this
species may, therefore, occur on the project site. The milk vetch is listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Impacts to the milk vetch are fully mitigated by the CVMSHCP through the payment of the
Plan mitigation fee and no further action is necessary.
The Salton milkvetch is a perennial herb found in the Sonoran Desert of California and Arizona. No individuals,
evidence or records of the Salton milkvetch were found on or near the project boundaries. The Salton milkvetch
is neither state nor federally listed. It is a rare plant usually encountered on sandy or gravelly soils below 1,000
feet in elevation. Though considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society it is not a covered species
under the CVMSHCP.
The biological report concludes that there is no evidence or records that any p lant species considered sensitive
occurs within the project site boundaries. More importantly, any species that might occur on the project site is
either a covered species or under the CVMSHCP or not listed (or a candidate for listing) by either the state or
federal governments. Therefore, there are no recommendations for future surveys or mitigation.
Encountered arthropods on the site included the harvester ant, sand scorpion, Elodes beetle, and honeybee.
Three insect species known to occur in the Coachella Valley have been places on the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife Special Animals list. They are the Coachella giant sand treader cricket, the Coachella Valley
Jerusalem cricket, and the Coachella Valley grasshopper. None of these three insect species were found during
the surveys and none have any official status with governmental agencies. The Coachella giant sand treader
cricket and Jerusalem cricket are covered species under the CVMSHCP.
Recorded mammals included the black tailed jackrabbit, Palm Springs ground squirrel and coyote. No
individuals of the Palm Springs Pocket Mouse were found. No individuals of the desert kit fox were observed
or detected on or near the project site. Human activity in the area is the likely explanation for it s absence. The
desert kit fox is fully protected in California and is not a covered species under the Plan.
The Palm Springs ground squirrel is the only mammalian covered species discovered within the project
boundaries. It was detected twice (burrows) and should be expected throughout the project site as the habitat is
suitable. It currently is not a listed species and has a much broader range than was previously thought. It is,
therefore, unlikely that it will be listed in the near future. It is a covered species under the CVMSHCP and
impacts to the squirrel are mitigated by the payment of required habitat acquisition fee.
Detected birds within the project area were the Say’s phoebe, American kestrel, common raven, mourning dove,
and house finch. No observations of LeConte’s thrasher were recorded during the surveys. In the Coachella
Valley this species is closely associated with golden cholla in which it nests. No golden chollas were present
within the project boundaries. LeConte’s thrasher is a covered species under the CVMSHP. Two functionally
Item 3B - Page 299
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 26
non-covered and sensitive avian species were possible occupants of the project site and vicinity; the burrowing
owl and loggerhead shrike.
An intensive survey for the burrowing owl was undertaken following protocols established by state and federal
governments. No observations of the owl were recorded, and no evidence of its presence was found. The habitat
of the project site is suitable for the owl and active burrows of the species have been found several times within
two miles of the project site. Because the project site habitat is considered suitable and owls are known to occur
in the immediate area, it was concluded that the burrowing owl could assume residence on the site at any time.
The burrowing owl is not functionally covered under the Plan.
No observations of the loggerhead shrike were recorded. Shrikes nest in dense shrub s or trees that are at least
three feet in height. Such plants exist around the two abandoned hoes within the project boundaries, and they
could be used for nesting. The shrike is a non-covered species and considered a Species of Special Concern by
the state of California.
The only detected reptile encountered within the project site boundaries was the side-blotched lizard and
western whiptail. No individuals of the officially threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, were
observed, detected, or expected due to historical grading of the site. Impacts to the fringe-toes lizard are fully
mitigated by the payment of habitat acquisition fee as required under the plan.
A concerted effort was made to find sign of the officially listed desert tortoise. However, no evidence of any
kind was found, and no direct observations were made. In addition, the California Natural Diversity Database
has no records of the tortoise on or within one mile of the project site. It is concluded this species does not occur
within the project site and immediate vicinity and no additional surveys for this species are recommended.
An intensive effort was also made to locate evidence of the flat-tailed horned lizard. However, no individuals
were observed, and no sign (scat, tracks) was found. Additionally, the site is considered unsuitable habitat for
the horned lizard due to historical grading of the site. Impacts to the lizard are fully mitigated under the plan.
The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP, which outlines policies for conservation of habitats and
natural communities. The CVMSHCP implements a habitat mitigation fee from new development in order to
support the acquisition of conservation lands. The project is expected to comply with provisions of the
CVMSHCP.
Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, following the recommended mitigation measures listed below.
b) No Impact. The biological survey performed on the project property did not find any on-site naturally occurring
springs, permanent aquatic habitats or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. No blue-line stream corridors were found within the project boundaries. The project site has been
disturbed by development on the northern half of the project site and off-road tracks run along the eastern and
western boundaries of the project site. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
c) No Impact. According to the Project Specific Biological Resource Assessment, the project site does not contain
federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. The National Wetlands Inventory from the
USFWS, indicated that there are no wetlands or riparian resources on the project property. Fu rthermore, the
Biological Resources Assessments did not identify naturally occurring springs or permanent aquatic habitats in
or near the project site boundaries nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors.
Item 3B - Page 300
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 27
Implementation of the project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption
to any of these resources. The proposed on-site storm drain improvements shall include facilities to prevent the
direct discharge impacts of runoff to any adjacent land uses. A Project Specific Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) is expected to be prepared to ensure that the project does not contribute pollutants of concern in
any project storm runoff. In addition, the implementation of the on -site storm drain improvements in
conjunction with the Project Specific WQMP will work to minimize impacts runoff. No impacts are expected.
The project site does not contain federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. As a result,
implementation of the project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption
to any of these resources. The project will be designed with stormwater facilities that, during the life of the
project, will comply with the City’s drainage requirements by preventing the discharge and transport of
untreated runoff associated with the project. A project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is
expected to be prepared to ensure that the project does not contribute to pollutants of concern in any project
storm runoff. No impacts are expected.
d) No Impact. Per the project-specific biological report, no migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery
sites were found on the project or adjacent properties and no discernable and routinely used corridors were
identified. As previously discussed, the site has been disturbed by historical grading and does not provide
conditions to wildlife species as a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery sites. The project site is surrounded
by highly disturbed environments including busy thoroughfares and residential developments. As a result, the
site is essentially an ecological island with likely little significant biological interaction with natural habitats
elsewhere in the Coachella Valley. No impacts are expected.
e) No Impact. The project site is vacant with scattered vegetation and project implementation would not result in
demolition or tree removal. The project will comply with the CVMSHCP and there are no other uni que local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that would cause a conflict nor does the site support high
value biological resources that could be affected. Additionally, the proposed project will not conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and
no impacts are anticipated.
f) No Impact. The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP which outlines policies for conservation of
habitats and natural communities and is implemented by the City of Palm Desert. The project site is not located
within a Conservation Area under this plan and there are no known significant biological resources on the
project site. The CVMSHCP implements a habitat mitigation fee for new development to support the acquisition
of conservation lands, to be paid to the City. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with all required plan
provisions and pay the required mitigation fee in conformance with the CVMSHCP and City Ordinance and no
impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measure:
BR-1: Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Palm Desert shall ensure compliance
with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that payment of the
CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for the proposed Project is sent to the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission.
BR-2: The project proponent shall ensure that burrowing owl clearance survey is performed not more than 14
days prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, construction). If any owls are identified, the
most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Burrowing Owl
Mitigation) must be followed. It is also recommended that a survey take place 24 hours prior to ground
disturbance as burrowing owls may colonize or recolonize the site within the time between the original survey
and project activities.
Item 3B - Page 301
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 28
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Sources: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, CRM Tech, April 2022.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project is located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant and undeveloped
land in the City of Palm Desert. CRM Tech prepared a project-specific Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report update in April 2022. The project area was previously the subject of a standard Phase I cultural
resources survey completed by CRM Tech in 2006. The scope of that study included a historical/archaeological
resources records search, historical background research, Native American consultation, and an intensive-level
field survey. Throughout the course of these research procedures, no historical resources were identified within
or adjacent to the project boundaries.
In 2015, the project area was included in a 96.75 -acre survey also conducted by CRM Tech, using similar
research procedures, which also yielded negative results for historical resources. During the field survey in
2015, scattered remnants of an irrigation system of indeterminate age were noted along the western edge of the
current project area, such as concrete pipelines, standpipes, a capped well, and the foundation for a pump. Since
no agriculture activities occurred at this location during the historic period, the origin of these features was
through to have been likely associated with the development of the former Santa Rosa Golf Club on the adjacent
land to the west, which open in 1978, or the Palm Desert Greens Golf course further to the west, which dates
to sometime between 1958 and 1972.
The 2015 study concluded that such fragmented remains of the agricultural infrastructure, virtually ubiquitous
in rural and formerly rural areas throughout southern California, demonstrate little potential for historic
significance and generally requires no further study.
As both previous surveys involving the project area are now considered out of date for CEQA compliance
purposes, the present study was designed and implemented to update and reexamine their findings and
conclusions. Research procedures completed during this study include a review of more recent
historical/archaeological records searches conducted on nearby properties, a Sacred Lands Files search at the
State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a systematic field inspection of the
project area.
Due to substantial delays caused by facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new records search was
not obtained for this study from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources
Information System. Instead, the results of records searches for two studies carried out on properties within a
one-mile radius in 2018 were examined for pertinent information. Since the EIC has not updated its collection
since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, the coverage is considered to be adequate for this study. The data
indicate that no additional cultural resources studies occurred within the project area between 2015 and 2018,
although a linear survey was reported to the EIC along the segment of Frank Sinatra Drive adjacent to the
northern project boundary. The data further indicates that no additional historical/archaeological resources have
been identified within the project area or within a half-mile radius. Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080), a
prehistoric—i.e., Native American—ceramic scatter recorded approximately a quarter-mile to the east, remains
the only known cultural resource within the half-mile scope of the records search.
Item 3B - Page 302
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 29
The field inspection of the project area was conducted on February 28, 2022. The survey was completed at a
Reconnaissance level by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 25 meters (approximately 75
feet) apart. Ground visibility was excellent (90-100%) over the entire project area due to the sparse vegetation
growth. As in the past surveys, no historical/archaeological resources were encountered in the project area. The
remnants of irrigation features were again noted on the property, as were scattered refuse of modern origin,
mainly along the perimeters. None of these items, however, are of any historical/archaeological interest.
The Cultural report update concludes that the research procedures completed during this study have confirmed
that no historical resources are known to be present within the projec t area. Therefore, less than significant
impacts to historical resources are expected.
b) Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the project area was previously the subject of a
standard Phase I cultural resources survey completed by CRM Tech in 2006 and the project area was also again
included in a 2015 survey. The scope of those studies included a historical/archaeological resources records
search, historical background research, Native American consultation, and an intensive -level field survey.
Throughout the course of these research procedures, no historical resources were identified within or adjacent
to the project boundaries.
On February 3, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in the Sacred
Lands File pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. As during the
2006 and 2015 surveys, the NAHC’s reply states that the Sacred Lands File identified no such resources in or
near the project area.
The 2022 field survey produced negative results from both the historic and pre-historic period. Records
searched indicate that no additional cultural resources studies occurred within the project area between 2015
and 2018, although a linear survey was reported to the EIC alon g the segment of Frank Sinatra Drive adjacent
to the northern project boundary. The data further indicate that no additional historical/archaeological resources
have been identified within the project area or within a half-mile radius. Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080), a
prehistoric—i.e., Native American—ceramic scatter recorded approximately a quarter mile to the east, remains
the only known cultural resource within the half-mile scope of the records search. Therefore, less than
significant impacts are expected.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to affect any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. As previously discussed, a field survey of the project site did not show
any evidence of human activities dating to prehistoric or historic periods, and no other sites, features, artifacts,
or built environment features were encountered. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, state law requires that in the event of discovery or recognition of
any human remains in any located other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site, or any nearby area until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner
determines that the remains are not recent and may be Native American, in accordance with Public Resource
Code 5097.94, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of
the find. Therefore, the project will comply with State law and less than significant impacts relative to human
remains are expected.
Mitigation Measure: None
Item 3B - Page 303
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 30
6. ENERGY – Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy of energy efficiency?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert Municipal Code; Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2008; Palm Desert
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update, 2013; Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, 2010; Palm Desert Environmental
Sustainability Plan Update 2016.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project is located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land at the
southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The project proposes up to 402 residential
dwelling units, dog park/water retention area, putting green, two pools, recreational courts, 4,500-square-foot
fitness facility, 17,500-square-foot club house, paved drive aisles, pedestrian sidewalks, gated entry points, and
landscaping throughout. Access to the site will occur from Frank Sinatra Drive (exit only) and Portola Avenue.
Electricity and natural gas are the primary sources of energy in the City of Palm Desert. Electricity is provided
primarily by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s facilities include high-voltage transmission lines, lower
voltage distribution lines, and substations, which lowers voltage so that it can be distributed to homes and
businesses. SCE’s transmission system includes high-voltage lines rated at 500, 230, 115, 66 and 55 kilovolts
(kV). Distribution lines are those rated below 55 kV. Electric power is transported to individual homes and
businesses from substations through 33 and 12 kV distribution lines.
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas or the Gas Company) provides natural gas to the City of
Palm Desert, serving residential, commercial, and industrial markets. Natural gas is the primary source of
energy used in the City for space and water heating, as well as cooking. The Gas Company has maj or supply
lines along Monterey Avenue (west) and Country Club Drive (south).
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC,) transportation accounts for nearly 37 percent of
California’s total energy consumption. Petroleum-based fuels account for approximately 92 percent of
California’s transportation energy sources. Technological advances, market trends, consumer behavior, and
government policies could result in significant changes to fuel consumption by type and in total. Various
policies, rules, and regulations have been enacted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency, promote the development
and use of alternative fuels, reduce transportation-source air pollutants and GHG emissions, and reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), at the federal and State levels. Technological advances have made use of other energy
resources or alternative transportation modes increasingly feasible, as market forces have driven the price of
petroleum products steadily upward.
The project is expected to consume energy in the form of electricity, natural gas and petroleum during project
construction and operation. Analysis of the project-related energy consumption was calculated using the latest
version of CalEEMod (V2040.4.0), which calculates construction-source and operational-source criteria
pollutant and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources. The project is categorized into five land uses
within CalEEMod: Apartments Low Rise, Parking Lot, Enclosed Parking with Elevator, Unenclosed Parking
Structure, Enclosed Parking Structure, Health Club, and Recreational Swimming Pool. Project related energy
consumption, via electricity, natural gas and petroleum is analyzed subsequently.
Construction Energy Demands
Electricity
Item 3B - Page 304
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 31
Temporary electrical power for lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside interim
construction trailers, would be provided by SCE. Electricity consumed for onsite construction trailers, which
are used by managerial staff during the hours of construction activities, as well as electrically powered hand
tools are expected to use a minimal amount of electricity. However, the electricity used for such activities would
be temporary and negligible. Most energy used during construction would be from petroleum consumption
(discussed further in following subsection).
Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the project. Fuels used for construction
would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the following petroleum subsection.
Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed because of project construction would be temporary
and negligible and would not have an adverse effect.
Petroleum
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the project. Fuel consumed by construction
equipment would be the primarily energy resource expended over the course of construction, while VMT
associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also
result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty equipment used for project construction would rely on diesel fuel,
as would haul trucks involved in off-hauling materials from excavation. Construction workers are expected to
travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. There are no unusual project
characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy
intensive that is used for comparable activities or use of equipment that would not conform to current emission
standards (and related fuel efficiencies).
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of construction.
CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage. In the analysis of the project the mitigated
construction figures were used, based on the assumption that the project will implement applicable mitigation
measures. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions
from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors shown in the tables included subsequently.
Table VI-4, Construction Worker Gasoline Demand, illustrates the demand of gasoline fuel for construction
worker trips to and from the site during each construction phase, and phase of development. Construction
worker gasoline demand during each phase of development equals a total of 76,767.3 gallons of gasoline fuel.
Table VI-4 Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Phase Days Trips Miles VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Site Prep. 20 18 11 3,960 1,190.1 8.89 133.9
Grading 45 20 11 9,900 2,975.2 8.89 334.7
Building Const. 500 416 11 228,800 665,990 8.89 74,914.5
Paving 40 15 11 6,600 1,883.4 8.89 211.9
Arch. Coating 40 83 11 36,520 10,421.6 8.89 1,172.3
Total 76,767.3
*https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
Table VI-5, Construction Vendor Diesel Fuel Demand (below), illustrates the demand of diesel fuel for
construction vendor trips to and from the site. These trips are associated with the delivery of construction
materials during the construction phase. Construction vendor demand equals a total of 31,929.1 gallons of diesel
fuel.
Item 3B - Page 305
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 32
Table VI-5 Construction Vendor Diesel Fuel Demand
Phase Days Trips Miles VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Site Prep. 20 0 0 0 0 10.18* 0
Grading 45 0 0 0 0 10.18 0
Building Const. 500 92 5.40 248,400 325,038.3 10.18 31,929.1
Paving 40 0 0 0 0 10.18 0
Arch. Coating 40 0 0 0 0 10.18 0
Total 31,929.1
*https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
Table VI-6, Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Demand, displays the demand of diesel fuel for construction
vehicles on-site during the various construction phases. Construction equipment diesel demand equals a total
of 77,196.6 gallons of diesel fuel.
Table VI-6 Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Demand
Phase Days Equipment Units KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Site Prep. 20 7 33,709.7 10.18 3,311.4
Grading 45 8 123,694.8 10.18 12,150.8
Building Const. 500 9 582,966.1 10.18 57,265.8
Paving 40 6 40,376.9 10.18 3,966.3
Arch. Coating 40 1 5,113.7 10.18 502.3
Total 77,196.6
Table VI-7, Hauling Diesel Fuel Demand, displays the demand of diesel fuel for construction vehicles hauling
soil during the grading construction phase. The diesel demand from hauling equals a total of 16,262.2 gallons
of diesel fuel.
Table VI-7 Hauling Diesel Fuel Demand
Days Trips Miles VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Hauling 45 5,680 20 113,600 165,548.8 10.18* 16,262.2
Total 16,262.2
Overall, the project is estimated to consume approximately 76,767.3 gallons of gasoline and 125,387.9 gallons
of diesel fuel during the project’s construction phases. In total, the project will consume approximately
202,155.2 gallons of petroleum. Petroleum use is necessary to operate construction equipment. The US EPA
applied a Tier 3 program in order to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. The
vehicle emissions standards will reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, medium duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The construction equipment will utilize
Tier 3 engines or higher, therefore would be newer off-road equipment units.
The energy used during the construction of the project would be limited to the development of the project and
would not require long-term petroleum use. Additionally, there are no unusual project characteristics or
construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive that is used
for comparable activities or use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related
fuel efficiencies). Thus, project construction would not consume petroleum in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
Operational Energy Demands
Item 3B - Page 306
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 33
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include facilities energy demands
(energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities), and transportation energy demands
(energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site).
Electricity
The project proposes up to 402 residential dwelling units, dog park/water retention area, putting green, two
pools, recreational courts, a fitness facility, clubhouse, paved drive aisles, pedestrian sidewalks, gated entry
points, and landscaping throughout on approximately 18.3 acres on the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive
and Portola Avenue. The project would not result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or electricity and
would not result in the need to develop additional sources of energy. Although energy use at the project would
not be excessive, the project would incorporate several measures directed at minimizing energy use. These
measures include applying energy efficient design features, including using high efficiency lighting, such as
LEDs, to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards, and therefore, reducing electricity consumption during pro ject
operation.
According to the CalEEMod calculations, the project is expected to generate the demand for approximately
4,061,995.8 kWh of annual electricity, depicted in Table VI-8, Operational Electricity Demand.
Table VI-8 Operational Electricity Demand
Electricity Demand
Land Use kWh/yr
Apartments Low Rise 1,580,320
Apartments Low Rise* 1,514,145.8
Health Club 212,652
Recreational Swimming Pool 0
Parking Lot 21,050.4
Enclosed Parking Structure 302,176
Enclosed Parking Structure with Elevator 324,048
Unenclosed Parking Structure 107,604
Total 4,061,995.8
*The project applicant proposes all-electric residential dwelling units. Therefore, the use of natural
gas appliances is not proposed in the project. The CalEEMod modelling program calculated that the
project would consume approximately 5,166,480 kBTU of natural gas annually during operation of
the apartments. However, since the residential units would not utilize natural gas appliances, a
simple conversion was utilized to convert the approximate natural gas consumed during the
operation of the apartments to electric power (kWh) where: 1 kBTU = 0.293071 kWh. Therefore,
5,166,480 kBTU = 1,514,145.8 kWh, as indicated in the table.
According to the Palm Desert 2013 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the residential sector consumed approximately
332,321,323 kWh in 2013, which was determined as a baseline condition. Electricity consumed per housing
unit was 8,863 kWh. As previously stated, the project is expected to generate the demand for approximately
4,061,995.8 kWh of annual electricity, which is an approximately 1.22 percent increase in city-wide electricity
usage.
The project proposes the installation of high efficiency lighting and appliances onsite and water efficient
irrigation systems. The project will also comply with California Building Code and Energy Code standards to
ensure energy efficient technologies and practices are used at the project site.
Natural Gas
Item 3B - Page 307
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 34
The consumption of natural gas typically is consumed during building heating, water heating and cooking,
which will occur during project operation. The project’s expected natural gas consumption was calculated using
the CalEEMod default values. However, the project applicant proposes all-electric residential units, which is
more energy efficient and produces less greenhouse gas emissions than natural gas burning appliances. Based
on the CalEEMod calculations, the project is estimated to consume approximately 5,893,905 kBTU of natural
gas annually during operation of the entire project. Based on CalEEMod’s default values, approximately
5,166,480 kBTU of natural gas would be consumed during operation of the residential units. However, since
the project will not use natural gas appliances in the residential dwelling units, the total amount of annual natural
gas consumed during operation of the project is approximately 727,425 kBTU associated with the health club.
This is displayed in Table VI-9, Operational Natural Gas Demand.
Table VI-9 Operational Natural Gas Demand
Natural Gas Demand
Land Use kBTU/yr
Apartments Low Rise 5,166,480*
Health Club 727,425
Recreational Swimming Pool 0
Parking Lot 0
Enclosed Parking Structure 0
Enclosed Parking Structure with Elevator 0
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0
Total 727,425**
*The project proposes all-electric residential units. Therefore, natural gas demand for
the residential apartments would not likely be consumed during operation of the
residential portion of the project
**Therefore, the total natural gas consumed for the project is 727,425 kBTU annually
for the operation of the health club.
As such, the project would result in a long-term increase in demand for natural gas. According to the Palm
Desert 2013 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the residential sector consumed approximately 12,317,535 therms in
2013, which was determined as a baseline condition. As previously stated, the project is expected to generate
the demand for approximately 5,893,905 kBTU of natural gas annually, which is equivalent to 58,953.1 therms.
However, as previously stated, the project does not propose the installation of natural gas appliances in the
residential apartments. Therefore, the project would consume a total of 727,425 kBTU of natural gas annually
(which is 7,276 therms) during operation, which is an approximately 0.06 percent increase in city-wide natural
gas usage.
The project would be required to comply with the most recent California Building Code and Energy Code
standards to ensure energy efficient technologies and practices are used at the project site. Therefore, the project
will not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation.
Additionally, natural gas consumption would be appropriate and not place a significant burden on SoCal Gas
services.
Petroleum
According to the figures provided by the CalEEMod calculations, the project would have an estimated annual
VMT of 5,903,418. The average daily trip (ADT) rate for weekdays is 2,701.44 ADT, and Saturdays and
Sundays are 2,709.48 ADT. Total mobile source CO2e is 2,037.8 MT per year, or 2,037,796.9 kg per year.
CalEEMod assumes 92.5 percent of VMT burns gasoline, while the remaining 7.5 percent burn diesel. Thus,
of the 2,037,796.9 kg of mobile emissions, 1,884,962.1 kg is generated by gasoline combustion and 152,834.8
Item 3B - Page 308
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 35
kg is generated by diesel combustion. The project would have an annual gasoline demand of 212,031.7 gallons
and an annual diesel demand of 15,013.2 gallons, as displayed in Table VI-11.
Table VI-10, Operational Petroleum Demand
Land Use Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 5,903,418
Health Club 0
Recreational Swimming Pool 0
Parking Lot 0
Enclosed Parking Structure 0
Enclosed Parking Structure with Elevator 0
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0
Total 5,903,418
Table VI-8 Operational Annual Petroleum
Annual VMT Kg/CO2 Kg/CO2/Gallon Annual Gallons
Gasoline 5,460,661.65 1,884,962.1 8.89 212,031.7
Diesel 442,756.35 152,834.8 10.18 15,013.2
Total Petroleum 227,044.9
During operation, the project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular
travel to and from the project site. According to the 2013 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the community VMT was
509,372,317 VMTs in 2013. The proposed project will contribute approximately 5,903,418 VMTs annually, or
1.16 percent of the total annual VMT at City buildout.
Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles in use is expected to increase, as older vehicle s
are replaced with newer more efficient models. Therefore, it is expected that the amount of petroleum consumed
due to the vehicle trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. Additional
advancement of technology includes the use of plug-in hybrid and zero emission vehicles in California, which
will also decrease the amount of future petroleum consumed in the state. With the foregoing, operation of the
project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time, due to advances in fuel economy.
Additionally, the proposed residential community is located within a mile-radius to existing restaurants and
services along Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive, approximately 0.75 miles south of the project . The
regional VMTs and associated vehicular-source emissions are reduced by the following project design
feature/attribute: on-site sidewalk improvements will be implemented to improve pedestrian connectivity to the
surroundings; encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedule; and implementing a school bus
program. Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site encourages people to walk
instead of drive, while the implementation of a school bus program will allow students to take the bus instead
of requiring parents to drive their children to school.
The project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable federal and
State of California standards and regulations, and in doing so, would meet California Building Standa rds Code
Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the project’s operation is modeled to be comparable to
energy consumed by other residential uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in
California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption
Item 3B - Page 309
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 36
of energy. Further, the project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing facilities
or energy delivery systems.
In conclusion, the project would result in an increase in energy use during construction and operation compared
to the existing conditions. However, based on the findings described above, project construction and operation
are not anticipated to result in potentially significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Additionally, the project would
implement measures required under the City’s General Plan, City Municipal Code, the California Building
Code, and the California Energy Code. Given these considerations, energy consumption associated with the
project operation would not be considered excessive.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will include residential dwelling units, a
community clubhouse, swimming pools, dog park, recreational courts, and open space areas. As stated in the
previous discussion, project development and operation are not anticipated to use an unnecessary amount of
energy resources. To ensure the conservation of energy, the State of California and the City of Palm Desert
implements various regulations in order to be more energy efficient and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Some of the State-wide and local regulations are listed below.
Federal Regulations
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of
intermodal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air
quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address
in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy -related factors. To meet the new
ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental
values guiding transportation decisions.
State Regulations
Assembly Bill 32
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed in 2006 to establish and reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases being
emitted on a state-wide level. Specifically, AB 32 requires a reduction of emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It
plans to do this by establishing an annual reporting program for significant sources. Energy efficiency goals
listed in AB 32 includes maximizing energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursuing
additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms.
CARB Scoping Plan
A specific requirement of AB 32 was to prepare a Climate Change Scoping Plan for achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reduction by 2020 (Health and Safety Code section
38561(h)). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed an AB 32 Scoping Plan that contains
strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The initial Scoping Plan was approved in 2008, and contains a
mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary
measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emission
limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the State’s long-range climate objectives. Updates to
the Scoping Plan occurred in 2014 and in 2017.
Assembly Bill 1493/Pavley Regulations
California Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt
regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2005, the CARB submitted
a “waiver” request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from a portion of the federal Clean Air Act
in order to allow the State to set more stringent tailpipe emission standards for CO2 and other GHG emissions
Item 3B - Page 310
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 37
from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. On December 19, 2007, the EPA announced that it denied the
“waiver” request. On January 21, 2009, CARB submitted a letter to the EPA administrator regarding the State’s
request to reconsider the waiver denial. The EPA approved the waiver on June 30, 2009.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, passed in 2005, established reduction targets of an 80 percent of 1990 levels
reduction by 2050, and created agencies to achieve these targets. The passage of this regulation requires the use
of more energy efficient practices regarding building development and operation in order to reduce the amount
of GHGs produced.
State of California Energy Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies
emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance
of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to
improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least
environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including
assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles
traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
Title 20: Appliance Efficiency Standards
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608
(Appliance Efficiency Regulations) regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency
Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non -federally regulated appliances.
23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations
apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for
final retail sale outside the state and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other
mobile equipment.
Title 24: Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Building Standards Code
In addition to Title 20 (Sections 1601-1608) of the CCR, Title 24, parts 6 and 11, also outlines energy efficient
building designs for new development. The CCR’s 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part
6), and the CALGreen Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11), establish mandatory guidelines and
standards requiring more energy efficient new and existing developments. The California Energy Commission
adopted the Building Energy Efficient Standards for all new residential and nonresidential construction to
reduce greenhouse gases, as a part of the California Building Code, Title 24. This requires new homes to include
at least 50 percent of kitchen lighting to be LED, compact fluorescent or similar high efficiency fixtures, double
pane windows, cool roofs, and other design techniques to reduce heat loss. Title 24, Part 11, establishes design
and development methods that include environmentally responsible site selection, building design, building
siting and development to protect, restore and enhance the environmental quality of the site and respect the
integrity of adjacent properties. The proposed project will be required to comply with the state implemented
standards for energy efficient new developments.
Local and City Regulations
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or Senate Bill 375, coordinates land use
planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction
Mandates of AB 32. The project is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
jurisdiction, which has the authority to develop the sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative
planning strategy (APS). For the SCAG region, the targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
are at eight percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 19 percent below 2005 per capita
GHG emissions by 2035. These reduction targets became effective October 2018.
Item 3B - Page 311
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 38
Desert Cities Energy Partnership and Green for Life Project
Palm Desert is an active member of the Desert Cities Energy Partnership (DCEP), a partnership of Southern
California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Imperial Irrigation District (IID), the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the cities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs,
Indian Wells, La Quinta, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Palm Springs, managed by the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments (CVAG). Green for Life is an energy-saving program funded by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) through SCE and administered by CVAG.
Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory was completed in 2008 as part of the City’s plan towards
climate protection and compliance with AB 32 and SB 375. The GHG Inventory is intended to quantify existing
Citywide emissions and compile GHG reduction measures and policies in a strategic framework to project
future emissions. In 2013, the GHG Inventory was updated and provides a comparative analysis between energy
consumption in 2008 and 2013.
In the 2008 baseline year, the City of Palm Desert contributed 621,225 metric tons of CO2e. This baseline
summary represents a GHG intensity of 12.2 metric tons per capita. According to the GHG Inventory, electricity
and natural gas usage accounted for approximately 53.4 percent of total Citywide CO2e emissions, and
transportation related emissions accounted for 36.8 percent of total Citywide CO2e emissions.
In 2013, the City of Palm Desert contributed 615,941 metric tons of CO2e. This is 5,284 metric tons less than
the 2008 emissions (621,225 metric tons). This decrease in CO2e is accompanied by natural City growth,
particularly in the commercial sector, meaning the City is making progress in implementing GHG reduction
programs and applying strict environmental standards through Municipal Ordinances. According to the 2013
GHG Inventory, electricity and natural gas usage accounted for approximately 52 percent of the Citywide CO2e
emissions, and transportation related emissions accounted for 37.8 percent of total Citywide CO2e emissions.
Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP)
The City’s ESP, adopted in 2010, presents an action plan driven by impending regulations and two laws – AB
32 and SB 375. The Plan demonstrates how the City is involved in issues relating to environmental
sustainability, including energy, waste management, storm water, water reclamation, transportation, and
landscaping. In 2016 the ESP was updated to be responsive to current trends. The Plan sets a series of goals for
the City that are grounded in principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development and addresses
six resource areas, including the built environment, energy management, materials management, regional air
quality, transportation resources, and water management.
Palm Desert General Plan
The City of Palm Desert strives to be a responsible steward of natural resources, per the City General Plan.
Priorities are to reduce per-capita consumption of energy and water, promote greater use of sustainable materials
with an eye upon the needs of future generations, encourage all new construction to be net zero energy in design
and exceed the Coachella Valley Water District’s efficiency standards, and encourage property owners to
reduce energy and water consumption. The General Plan also includes policies to reduce energy consumption
through minimizing VMT; approving land use patterns that support increased density in areas where there is
infrastructure to support it; creating increased opportunities for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles; encouraging
and approving green building and land development conservation initiatives. Energy efficiency is emphasized
in the Environmental Resources and Public Utilities Chapters in the General Plan. Some goals and policies
encouraging energy efficiency are provided as follows:
• Goal 6. Energy – an energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non-polluting
energy sources.
Item 3B - Page 312
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 39
o 6.1 Passive solar design. Require new buildings to incorporate energy efficient building and site
design strategies for the desert environment that include appropriate solar orientation, thermal
mass, use of natural daylight and ventilation, and shading.
o 6.3 Energy efficient buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits
to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
Palm Desert Municipal Code
Similar to the Sustainability Plan and the General Plan, the City’s Municipal Code also includes provisions that
encourage the use of alternative transportation means that reduce the use of non -renewable energy and the use
of energy efficient appliances and building design standards. The following list includes some of these
provisions:
• Chapter 24.08, Transportation Demand Management Requirements. This Code is intended to protect
the public health, safety and welfare by reducing air pollution caused by vehicle miles traveled. This
is achieved with the development of a trip reduction and travel demand element to the congestion
management plan, and the adoption and implementation of trip reduction and travel demand
ordinances by local agencies.
• Section 15.14.010, Adoption of the California Energy Code. This Code adopts the California Energy
Code (Title 24, Part 6, 2019 Edition), which prescribes regulations governing the building envelope,
space-conditioning system, water-heating systems, indoor lighting systems, outdoor lighting systems,
and indoor and outdoor signs installations, construction, maintenance, alteration, and repair within the
City.
• Section 15.18.010, Adoption of the California Green Building Standards Code. This Code adopts the
California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11, 2019 Edition), which regulates public health, safety
and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction encouraging sustainable construction
practice within the City.
• Chapter 15.16, Solar PV Code. This Code provides minimum standards for new developments, which
shall include the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and Energy Star appliances.
• Chapter 15.17, Residential Solar PV Permits. This Chapter encourages the use of solar systems by
removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City of Palm Desert,
and expanding the ability of property owners to install solar systems.
Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in a developed area. Access to and from
the project site is proposed to occur on existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not
interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant
to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area.
Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant
is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient
buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by Southern California
Edison and the Southern California Gas Company.
Regarding Pavley (AB 1493) regulations, an individual project does not have the ability to comply or conflict
with these regulations because they are intended for agencies and their adoption of procedures and protocols
for reporting and certifying GHG emission reductions from mobile sources.
Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed
the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11
(CALGreen). CALGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building
Item 3B - Page 313
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 40
commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low
pollutant-emitting finish materials.
Additionally, the project is consistent with eh applicable strategies of the City of Palm Desert’s Sustainability
Plan and GHG Inventory, as well as CARB’s Scoping Plan. The project property will comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local guidelines and regulations regarding energy efficient building design and standards.
Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. Less than significant impacts are expected.
Mitigation: None Required
Item 3B - Page 314
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 41
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource of site or unique
geologic feature?
Source: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Apartment Complex, Sladden Engineering, May 2022; The Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act, California Department of Conservation; Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert General
Plan EIR 2016; Riverside County General Plan, Safety Element, 2016; Riverside County General Plan Geotechnical Report
2000.
a) i. Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert, similar to most of Southern California, is susceptible
to earthquakes due to the active faults that traverse the region. The Palm Desert General Plan (PDGP) notes
that the City’s planning area in not located in an active fault zone, however, the planning area is bordered by
three active faults. The closest fault to the planning area is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately four
miles to the north. Other nearby faults include the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately 10 miles to the
southwest, and the Elsinore Fault, located approximately 30 miles to the southwest.
To reduce losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act
was passed in 1972. This act was formed after the destructive San Fernando earthquake occurred a year prior.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act is intended to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of
most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures
from surface fault or fault creep (California Department of Conservation). After consulting the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist, it was determined that the closest
Item 3B - Page 315
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 42
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the project site is the San Andreas Fault, approximately 4.2 miles
northeast of the subject property. Conclusively, the project site is not located on an active fault or within the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
With the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map and the PDGP EIR, it can be concluded that although
seismically induced ground shaking is expected in the City, rupture from an earthquake fault is not anticipated
on the project site. There are no known active faults near or at the project site, and the project is not located in
an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
ii. Less than Significant Impact. Strong ground shaking is the geologic hazard that has the greatest potential to
severely impact the Palm Desert planning area due to the major faults in the region, such as the San Andreas
and San Jacinto faults. According to the General Plan EIR, six historic seismic events have significantly affected
the Coachella Valley region in the past 100 years. The Palm Desert Technical Background Report (TBR)
indicates that the last major earthquake to occur on the southern San Andreas was the Hector Mine Earthquake
that occurred on October 16, 1999, and was measured a magnitude M 7.1. Based on site-specific ground motion
parameters developed for the property, Sladden Engineering, in their project-specific Geotechnical Report,
determined that the site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAm) is estimated to be 0.737 g. All structures
in the planning area will be subjected to this shaking, and could be seriously damaged if not properly designed.
The proposed project will result in habitable structures, thus increasing the exposure of people to risks
associated with strong seismic ground shaking. The City requires that all new construction meet the standards
of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4.
With the foregoing, the proposed development will be constructed in a manner that reduces the risk of seismic
hazards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The project shall comply with the most current seismic
design coefficients and ground motion parameters and all applicable provisions of the CBC, specifically
Chapter 16 of the CBC, Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads, as well as City Municipal Code
Section 15.04.010. The CBC includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards, as well as
includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without collapsing and includes
foundational and structural measures. Section 15.04.010 of the City Municipal Code adopts the 2019 CBC for
regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion,
occupancy, equipment, use height, area and maintenance of all buildings and/or structures in the City.
Additionally, remedial grading and construction will work to reduce exposure of people or structures to adverse
effects to the greatest extent possible against seismic hazards. All grading and construction plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City. Following compliance with standard conditions relative to seismic design
requirements, less than significant impacts are expected.
iii. Less than Significant Impact. According to the Palm Desert General Plan, liquefaction describes the loss of
soil strength caused by a sudden increase in pore water pressure during shaking (i.e., earthquake) and is one of
the most destructive secondary effects of seismic shaking. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated and loose,
fine- to medium-grained soils and where groundwater lies within 30 feet of the surface, but it may also occur
in areas where groundwater lies up to 50 feet beneath the surface. High pore pressures that build up in sediments
during repeated seismic vibrations cause the soil to behave like a liquid. The excess pore pressures are often
pushed upward through fissures and soil cracks, which causes water-soil slurry to bubble onto the ground
surface. If liquefaction would occur, lateral spreading might be a hazard in an area adjacent to a defined channel.
The Palm Desert General Plan states that according to the Riverside County Land Use Information System
(2014), the majority of the City is located in an area susceptible to moderate liquefaction potential. This is also
indicated in Figure 7.6, Liquefaction Susceptibility, in the PDGP Technical Background Report. Liquefaction
susceptibility in the City is based on sediment type, depth to groundwater, and proximity to the San Andreas
Fault.
Item 3B - Page 316
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 43
The Report further states that factors known to influence liquefaction include depth to groundwater (within 50
feet of the ground surface), soil type, structure, grain size, relative density, confining pressure, depth to
groundwater, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are
saturated, loose sandy soils and low plasticity clay and silt. According to the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the soil type at the project site includes Myoma fine sand (MaB and MaD). Current and historic
groundwater depths at the site area are greater 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction is
typically limited to the upper 50 feet of the subsurface soils. Therefore, the liquefaction potential at the project
site is low.
In addition to the historic groundwater levels in the area, Sladden Engineering, in their project -specific
Geotechnical Report, analyzed subsurface conditions by drilling eleven exploratory boreholes to depth ranging
from approximately 5 to 31 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum
explored depth of 31.5 feet bgs. With Sladden’s findings of the exploratory boreholes and historical d epth to
groundwater in the project vicinity, Sladden concluded that risks associated with liquefaction are considered
negligible. Adherence to the standard design requirements for seismic zone 4 and CBC standards will ensure
impacts related to liquefaction are reduced to less than significant levels.
iv. Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert General Plan (Figure 7.5) indicates that potential
landslide hazard is primarily located in hillsides or mountainous areas of the southernmost portions of the City.
The project is located in a central area of the City that is not designated as having landslide suscept ibility. The
areas of the proposed project are largely characterized by flat topography associated with partially disturbed
native desert conditions. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the GP EIR, Palm Desert is susceptible to wind erosion and
hazards associated with wind erosion. The sand dunes along Interstate 10 and the Whitewater River are the two
most significant sources of wind-blown sand in the planning area. Figure 7.2 of the TBR indicates that the
property is located in an area with a Very High Wind Erodibility Rating. The project will involve ground
disturbance, which has the potential to increase soil erosion. The project contractor will be required to
implement a PM10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan per SCAQMD Rule 403.1 that is submitted and reviewed as part
of the grading permit process to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust and sand during
construction. Procedures set forth in said plan will ensure that potential erosion is controlled during the
construction process. Once completed, the project area will consist of stabilized surfaces, which will resist
erosion and protect improvements. Implementation of this standard condition will work to reduce wind -borne
erosion. A common BMP that will be required as a standard condition is pre-watering of site soils (including
dunes) to the depth of the grading cut. Another common BMP is that soil moisture shall be maintained during
active grading activities. These and other BMPs included in the required PM10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan will
work to reduce windborne fugitive dust caused by earth movement to the greatest extent possible. The PM10
Plan is required to be implemented by the project by Mitigation Measure AQ-1. See Air Quality section of this
document for further discussion. Additionally, the proposed project is surrounded by developed property, which
offers protection from wind impacts.
In addition to the PM10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan, projects one acre in size or larger are required to comply
with the most current Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order No. 2009 -0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-
0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). Compliance with the CGP involves the development and implementation
of a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is designed to reduce potential
adverse impacts to surface water quality during the period of construction. The required plan will identify the
locations and types of construction activities requiring BMPs and other necessary compliance measures to
prevent soil erosion and stormwater runoff pollution. The plan will also identify the limits of allowable
construction-related disturbance to prevent any exceedances or violations. Waterborne erosion and the City’s
Standard Conditions associated with the topic are thoroughly discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality
Section of the document.
Item 3B - Page 317
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 44
The implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan (AQ-1), and the SWPPP (outlined above, and further
discussed in the Air Quality and Hydrology Sections of this document) will ensure that impacts from erosion
created from the project site will be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web Soil
Survey Map, the project’s soil types primarily consist of Myoma fine sand (MaB and MaD). MaB (0 to 5 percent
slopes) and MaD (5 to 15 percent slopes) are somewhat excessively draine d with a very low runoff class. This
knowledge of the project’s soil types is essential for new development regarding potential hazards.
As discussed previously, in section a) iii., liquefaction occurs when ground shaking of relatively long duration
and intensity causes loose, unconsolidated soils to act like a liquid and lose strength. For liquefaction to occur
in an area, the groundwater would have to be within 50 feet of the surface. Effects of liquefaction include a loss
of bearing strength, ground oscillations, and lateral spreading or displacement. However, liquefaction is not
anticipated to occur at the project site due to the lack of shallow groundwater. Since the approximate depth to
groundwater is greater than 50 feet below the site, the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading is low.
As discussed in portion a) iv. of this Geotechnical Section, the project site is not located in an area susceptible
to landslides. The project is located in a central area of the City that is not designated as having landslide
susceptibility. The areas of the proposed project are largely characterized by relatively flat topography
associated with partially disturbed native desert conditions. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement.
It is caused by both human activities (i.e., groundwater extraction) and natural activities (i.e., earthquakes) and
can cause regional damage. The potential for area ground subsidence is a regional issue that could possibly
impact the City of Palm Desert. Monitoring conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that
subsidence has occurred near the central portion of the City, specifically near Fred Waring Drive and Monterey
Avenue. However, monitoring efforts by the USGS, CVWD and others shows that subsidence rates in the
Coachella Valley have been increasing rapidly over the past several decades. CVWD has implemented a variety
of measures, such as groundwater recharge, imported water, and water conservation techniques and programs
to minimize the extraction of groundwater. Although subsidence has been recorded in Palm Desert, maps
generated by the USGS indicate that subsidence has not occurred at the project site. Additionally, Sladden
Engineering did not observe any fissures or other surficial evidence of subsidence at or near the subject site
during their investigation. This, with the implementation of subsidence measures, impacts are anticipated to be
less than significant.
The volume of collapsible soils reduces when the pore spaces in the soil become saturated, causing loss of
grain-to-grain contact and possibly dissolving interstitial cement holding the grains apart. Collapsible soils can
cause uniform or differential damage to foundations and walls built on this soil type. Per the General Plan,
expansive clay or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics do not underlie the City, however, soil conditions
are still required to be analyzed on a project-by-project basis. Grading plans and structural engineering plans
will be reviewed and approved by the City. The project will be conditioned to comply with the current California
Building Code (CBC) standards, and City requirements to reduce the impacts of potentially unstable soils;
therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
d) Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the GPU EIR discussion states that expansive clays
or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics do not underlie the City. Additionally, the results of Sladden
Engineering’s laboratory testing discovered that the materials underlying the site are considered “non -
expansive.” The CBC includes common engineering practices requiring special design and construction
methods that reduce or eliminate potential expansive soil-related impacts. Grading plans and structural
engineering plans will be reviewed and approved by the City. The project will be conditioned to comply with
the current California Building Code (CBC) standards, and City requirements to reduce the impacts of
potentially unstable soils; therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Item 3B - Page 318
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 45
e) No Impact. The proposed project is surrounded by urbanized development within the City. The proposed
project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer lines in the area and no septic systems will be permitted.
No impact is expected.
f) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. According to the Riverside County General Plan,
paleontological resources is evidence of past life forms and their biota, that is valued fo r the information they
yield about the history of earth and its past ecological settings. Per Figure OS-8, Paleontological Sensitivity, in
the Riverside County General Plan, the property is recognized for having low potential for Paleontological
Sensitivity. Areas recognized for having “low” potential have a reduced likelihood of containing significant
non-renewable paleontological resources, including vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils. Moreover, the
site is not recognized as a unique paleontological or a unique geologic feature. Therefore, it is unlikely that
paleontological resources are onsite. Additionally, the area surrounding the project area has been disturbed due
to development, which consists residential and golf course community. The site is currently vacant and
undeveloped. Although the project has a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources, a
qualified paleontologist shall be retained and present during the first days of ground disturbing activities. Once
the paleontologist has had a chance to assess the sediments and paleontological potential of the project area,
he/she may make a recommendation to reduce the monitoring effort, as appropriate, or continue with full time
monitoring. This decision shall be communicated along with the rationalization to the City for their records.
Less than significant impacts are expected following the recommended mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained and present during the first days of ground disturbing
activities. Once the paleontologist has had a chance to assess the sediments and paleontological potential of the
project area, he/she may make a recommendation to reduce the monitoring effort, as appropriate, or continue
with full time monitoring. This decision shall be communicated along with the rationalization to the City for
their records.
Item 3B - Page 319
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 46
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS --
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Sources: Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by SCAQMD, March 2017; Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10
State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), by SCAQMD, August 2003; Analysis of the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan, by the California Air Resources Board, February 2010; California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019, Trends of Emissions and Other
Indicators, 2021 Edition, California Air Resources Board; Release No. 18-37 & 19-35, California Air Resources Board Press
Release, July 2018 and August 2019.
Summary of Statewide Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Trends:
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are a group of gases that trap solar energy in the Earth’s atmosphere, preventing it from
becoming too cold and uninhabitable. Common greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere include water vapor,
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons to a lesser extent.
Carbon dioxide is the main GHG thought to contribute to climate change. Carbon dioxide reflects solar radiation
back to Earth, thereby trapping solar energy and heat within the lower atmosphere. Human activities (such as
burning carbon-based fossil fuels) create water vapor and CO2 as byproducts, thereby impacting the levels of GHG
in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a metric used to compare emissions of various greenhouse
gases. It is the mass of carbon dioxide that would produce the same estimated radiative forcing as a given mass of
another greenhouse gas.
To address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change, California’s Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires California Air Resource Board (CARB) to reduce statewide emissions of
greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 32 (SB32) that requires
California to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With the passage of the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) in California, environmental documents for projects
pursuant to CEQA are required to analyze greenhouse gases and assess the potential significance and impacts of
GHG emissions.
California's annual statewide GHG emission inventory is an important tool for determining historical emission
trends and tracking California's progress in reducing GHGs. In concert with data collected through various
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) programs, the GHG inventory has been considered critical in
demonstrating the state’s progress in achieving the statewide GHG target. The inventory provides estimates of
anthropogenic GHG emissions within California. CARB is responsible for maintaining and updating California’s
GHG Inventory.
On July 11, 2018, CARB announced in a press release (No. 18-37) that greenhouse gas pollution in California fell
below 1990 levels for the first time since emissions peaked in 2004, an achievement roughly equal to taki ng 12
million cars off the road or saving 6 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Moreover, according to the CARB report on
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 (published in 2019), which tracks the trends of GHG
emissions, California’s GHG emissions have followed a declining trend between 2007 and 2017. In 2017, emissions
from GHG emitting activities statewide were 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e), 5
MMTCO2e lower than 2016 levels and 7 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG Limit of 431 MMTCO2e. The largest
reductions are attributed to the electricity sector, which continues to see decreases as a result of the state’s climate
policies. The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions in the state, but saw a 1 percent
increase in emissions in 2017, the lowest growth rate over the previous 4 years.
Item 3B - Page 320
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 47
On August 12, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced in a press release (No. 19 -35) that GHG
emissions in California continued to fall ahead of schedule in 2017 as the state’s economy grew ahead of the national
average, according to the California Air Resources Board’s latest state inventory of climate-changing emissions.
The data also shows that for the first time since California started to track GHG emissions, the state power grid used
more energy from zero-GHG sources like solar and wind power than from electrical generation powered by fossil
fuels. The press release also included the following highlights:
Electricity: Emissions from electricity generation made up about 15 percent of 2017 statewide greenhouse gas
emissions. In 2017, those emissions fell nine percent from 2016, the largest decline of any economic sector. A large
increase in zero-emission energy resources drove the reduction. Those clean sou rces powered 52 percent of all
California’s electricity consumed in 2017.
Transportation: Vehicle tailpipe emissions accounted for 37 percent of California’s 2017 GHG emissions. Those
emissions rose but showed signs of leveling off. The 2017 increase was 0.7 percent, down from two percent the
preceding year. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions increase came from passenger vehicles.
Industry: Industrial emissions over multiple sectors showed a slight reduction or remained flat. California’s
industrial sectors generated 21 percent of state GHGs in 2017. Oil & gas refineries and hydrogen production were
responsible for one-third of those emissions. The rest came mostly from oil & gas extraction, cement plants, glass
manufacturers and large food processors.
The CARB report on California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 (2021 Edition) indicates that in 2019,
emissions from GHG emitting activities statewide were 418.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e), 7.1 MMTCO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG Limit of 431
MMTCO2e. The 2021 report also indicates that transportation emissions have continued to decline in 2019 as they
had done in 2018, with even more substantial reductions due to a significant increase in renewable diesel (up 61
percent from 2018), making diesel fuel bio-components (biodiesel and renewable diesel) 27 percent of total on-road
diesel sold in California. Total electric power emissions decreased by almost 7 percent in 2019, due to a continuing
increase in renewable energy, including a 46 percent increase in available hydropower in 2019.
a) Less than Significant Impact. CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to quantify GHG emissions associated
with the project involving up to 402 low-rise apartment units, private clubhouse/fitness facilities totaling 22,500
square feet, two private swimming pools, and parking facilities per the site plan. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (220) and daily trip generation rate are consistent with the Traffic Analysis for
this project. The 671 total parking stalls are divided into four categories: structure, garage, carport, and open
spaces since they all have different construction implications. The associated household size input was 2.05
persons per household based on the most recent CA Department of Finance numbers (May 2022) available at
the time of preparation. Construction-related GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added
to the project’s annual operational GHG emissions. The operational GHG emissions can be attributed to area
sources, mobile sources, solid wastes and water supply, treatment and distribution of the proposed operations.
The currently applicable GHG thresholds for local lead agency consideration are referenced from the SCAQMD
Working Group Threshold supporting documentation, which establishes an interim tiered approach. Under this
guidance, a screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year is
appliable to the project.
Item 3B - Page 321
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 48
Table VIII-1
Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Sources
Emissions (metric tons per year)
Total MTCO2E
Annual Construction
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 27.34
Area, Energy, Mobile Sources, Waste, and Water Usage 3,123.10
Total CO2E (All Sources) 3,150.44
SCAQMD Threshold for Industrial Projects 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? YES
As shown in Table VIII-1, project implementation is expected to generate approximately 3,150.44 MTCO2e
per year from conventional construction, area, energy, mobile sources, waste, and water usage sources. This
quantity would surpass the applicable threshold by approximately 150.44 MTCO2e per year, which is
equivalent to an exceedance of 5.01%.
In order to address the minor exceedance, the GHG analysis for this project explored various available factors
programmed into the CalEEMod software to reduce GHG emissions. It is worth noting that these factors are
not arbitrary or exclusive to CalEEMod, but are rather based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) Greenhouse Mitigation Measures, which is a technical resource to assess emission
reductions. These factors are also not considered conventional mitigation since they are reasonable assumptions
or regional Air District rules that can be factored into the residential project without the need for enforcement
or monitoring. The explanation is provided below:
GHG Reduction Factors
A conservative rate of 10% of residents will take advantage of partial work from home.
In recent years, work from home or telework has become a more common practice, defined as a work flexibility
arrangement between the employee and respective employer, under which the employee performs the duties
and responsibilities from home or an approved location other than the office. For context and based on the
California State Telework Guide, an estimated 21.7 percent of eligible state employees are partially
teleworking. As a GHG-reducing strategy, this analysis assumes that a conservative rate of 10 percent (1 in 10
residents) will take advantage of partial work from home (1.5 days of the work week). While it is not possible
to regulate or control the specific work from home rate for the proposed residential development, the factor
used for this project is a reasonable measure given the growing availability of work flexibility arrangements
across multiple work sectors.
A conservative rate of 50% of families will take advantage of the district’s school bus program.
The project is located within the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUD), which is said to provide bus
transportation to more than 5,000 students. This factor assumes that 1 in 2 families will take advantage of
DSUSD’s bus transportation program.
The project will employ high efficiency light fixtures and appliances.
Item 3B - Page 322
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 49
Recent improvements in technology and production have allowed light-emitting diode (LED) to become a
standard form of light over the less efficient incandescent lighting. This factor reasonably assumes that LED or
other high efficiency light fixtures and appliances will be incorporated into the project.
The project will use low VOC materials per SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Rule 1113 was adopted in September 1977 to tackle area source emissions, specifically paint and coatings and
their contribution of volatile organic content (VOC). Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or
manufactures any architectural coating for use in the South Coast AQMD must comply with the current VOC
standards. Therefore, this measure takes into account compliance Rule 1113, which is a mandate (rule) in our
SCAQMD jurisdiction.
The project will not have woodstoves or fireplaces per SCAQMD Rule 445
This strategy assumes that the proposed apartments will not have woodstoves or wood burning fireplaces, which
is consistent with SCAQMD Rule 445 (Wood-Burning Devices), banning the installation of wood-burning
devices into any new development.
Table VIII-2
Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With Reduction Measures
Emission Sources
Emissions (metric tons per year)
Total MTCO2E
Annual Construction
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 27.34
Area, Energy, Mobile Sources, Waste, and Water Usage 2,929.09
Total CO2E (All Sources) 2,956.43
SCAQMD Threshold for Industrial Projects 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? NO
Table VIII-2 demonstrates that the GHG reduction factors will lead to a measurable decrease in project-wide
GHG emissions from 3,156.86 MTCO2e per year to 2,956.43 MTCO2e per year, which is a net reduction of
194.01 MTCO2e per year. As such, the project-wide emission levels will be compliant with the SCAQMD
threshold.
Having been evaluated against the regionally accepted thresholds, which are part of the State’s regulations
aimed at addressing climate change, the project is not expected to interfere with the plans, policies, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated.
b) Less than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned in discussion a), under Assembly Bill 32 passed in
2006, California must reduce its emissions to 1990 levels (431 million metric tons) by 2020. Senate Bill 32,
signed in 2016, requires the state to go even further than AB 32 and cut emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels
by 2030—the most ambitious carbon goal in North America. California’s primary programs for reducing
greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 are the Renewables Portfolio Standard, the Advanced Clean Cars
Program, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Cap-and-Trade Program. Additional programs address a
variety of greenhouse gas sources. These include the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Strategy, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy and the Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The 2030 Scoping Plan, adopted by CARB,
Item 3B - Page 323
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 50
lays out how these initiatives work together to reduce greenhouse gases to achieve California’s 2030 target of
260 million metric tons and also to reduce smog-causing pollutants. This target will require California to more
than double the rate at which it has been cutting climate-changing gases. Future reductions will occur against a
backdrop of natural sources of GHGs which are increasingly variable because of the climate change California
is already witnessing. The SCAQMD adopted the interim GHG significance threshold for stationary/industrial
sources on December 5, 2008 which applies to projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated.
As announced in multiple press releases by the California Governor and demonstrated in the most recent CARB
report on emissions trends, California statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG Limit in 2016
and have remained below the 2020 GHG Limit since then, generally dropping since 2004. In 2019, emissions
from GHG emitting activities statewide were 418.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e), 7.1 MMTCO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG Limit
of 431 MMTCO2e. The 2021 report also indicates that transportation emissions have continued to decline in
2019 as they had done in 2018, with even more substantial reductions due to a significant increase in renewable
diesel (up 61 percent from 2018), making diesel fuel bio-components (biodiesel and renewable diesel) 27
percent of total on-road diesel sold in California. Total electric power emissions decreased by almost 7 percent
in 2019, due to a continuing increase in renewable energy, including a 46 percent increase in available
hydropower in 2019.
In summary, the residential project is expected to result in GHG emissions totaling 2,956.43 MTCO2e per year
after accounting for GHG reduction measures. This emission level occurs below the established 3,000 MTCO2e
significance threshold in compliance with AB 32, EO S-3-05. When accounting for the expected residential
population of 824 residents (based on 2.05 persons per household for 402 total dwelling units), the estimated
per capita of GHG emissions for the project is 3.59 MT/CO2E, which is considerably below the most recent per
capita calculation of 12.3 MT/CO2E assessed for the City under the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory
(2013 Update). As a result, the project is not expected to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 324
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 51
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Source: Enforcement and Compliance Fault Zoning Act, California Department of Conservation; Enforcement and Compliance
History Online, EPA, 2022; EnviroStor, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022; GeoTracker, State Water Resources
Control Board, 2022; Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
a,b) Less than Significant Impact: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR Title 40, Part 261) defines hazardous
materials based on ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and/or toxicity properties. The State of California defines
hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive and/or corrosive, which have
the capacity of causing harm or a health hazard during normal exposure or an accidental release. As a result,
the use and management of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances is regulated under existi ng federal,
state and local laws. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal methods to reduce their potential
to damage public health and the environment. Manufacturer’s specifications also dictate the proper use,
handling, and disposal methods for the specific substances.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels
and other potentially flammable substances. The nature and quantities of these products would be limited to
what is necessary to carry out construction of the project. Some of these materials would be transported to the
site periodically by vehicle and would be stored in designated controlled areas on a short-term basis. When
handled properly by trained individuals and consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions and industry
standards, the risk involved with handling these materials is considerably reduced. The Contractor will be
required to identify a staging area for storing materials and equipment, and will be required to implement
best management practices to assure that impacts are minimized and that any minor spills are immediately and
properly remediated.
Item 3B - Page 325
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 52
To prevent a threat to the environment during construction, the management of potentially hazardous materials
and other potential pollutant sources will be regulated through the implementation of control measures required
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP requires a list of potential
pollutant sources and the identification of construction areas where additional control measures are necessary
to prevent pollutants from being released on-site or into the surroundings. Best management practices are
necessary for Material Delivery and Storage; Material Use; and Spill Prevention and Control. These measures
outline the required physical improvements and procedures to prevent impacts of pollutants and hazardous
materials to workers and the environment during construction. For example all construction materials, including
paints, solvents, and petroleum products, must be stored in controlled areas and according to the manufacturer’s
specifications. In addition, perimeter controls (fencing with wind screen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags,
fiber rolls, or silt fencing), and access restrictions (gates) would help prevent temporary impacts to the public
and environment. With such standard measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated during
construction.
Activities in the proposed residential community are expected to involve the presence and transport of
chemicals for household and facilities maintenance. These will occur in limited quantities and are not expected
to represent a potentially significant impact. The proposed residential activities are not expected to involve the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or conditions that would pose a hazard to
public health and safety or the environment. The project also does not include facilities with foreseeable risk of
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school. The nearest existing school is University of California Riverside-Palm Desert campus located
approximately 0.90 miles east of the subject property. James Earl Carter Elementary is located approximately
1.40 miles south of the project site. The nature of the project is not anticipated to result in the release of
hazardous emissions or hazardous materials, or waste. As stated in discussion a.), materials used during the
construction and operation of the project will be stored and applied according to manufacturer’s instructions to
mitigate the potential for incidental release of hazardous materials or explosive reactions. Access routes for
vehicles transporting construction-related materials may pass a school site briefly during transit to the project;
however, brief passing of a school would not emit hazardous wastes that would affect the attendees at or around
the school sites. Trucks routes will typically occur on Interstate 10 and Portola Avenue. Additionally, operation
of residential neighborhoods will not result in the generation of hazardous emissions or the use of hazardous
materials. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Record searches on the project property were performed within multiple
database platforms compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and its subsections. The resources
consulted included GeoTracker, EnviroStor and the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO).
GeoTracker is a database maintained by the State of California Water Resources Control Board that provides
online access to environmental data. It serves as the management system for tracking regulatory data on sites
that can potentially impact groundwater, particularly those requiring groundwater cleanup and permitted
facilities, such as operating underground storage tanks and land disposal sites.
EnviroStor is a database maintained by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
The EnviroStor database identifies sites with known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to
investigate further. It includes the identification of formerly contaminated properties that have been released
for reuse; properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land
uses; and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the
environment at contaminated sites.
Item 3B - Page 326