HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2026-025Resolution No. 2026-025
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California,
Denying an Appeal and Confirming the Decision of the Planning
Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, Approving a Precise Plan
and Tentative Tract Map 39307 for the Development of a 156 Single -Family
Residential Lots Located at the Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive
and Portola Avenue and Approving an Addendum to the Previously
Approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative De claration Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Finding the Project
Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
CASE NO. PP/EA 25-0006/TTM 39307
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert is the decision-making body
for appeals of Planning Commission actions pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 25.60.080; and
Whereas, Blue Fern West, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted applications for Precise
Plan No. 25-0006 and Tentative Tract Map No. 39307 to allow development of 156 single -
family residential lots on approximately 18 acres located at the southwest corner of Frank
Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue (APNs 620-400-030 and 620-400-031) (“Project”); and
Whereas, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section
15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City
of Palm Desert is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
Whereas, the Project site was previously evaluated under an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND), State Clearinghouse No. 2022120165, adopted by the City
Council on January 26, 2023, for a higher -density development of up to 402 multifamily
residential units and entitlements has since expired; and
Whereas, the statutory 180-day period to challenge the adequacy of the adopted
MND has expired; and
Whereas, the Project represents a lower-density modification of the previously
analyzed development, replacing multifamily units with single -family residential lots; and
Whereas, an Addendum to the adopted MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164 to evaluate the currently proposed Project and determine
whether additional environmental review is required; and
Whereas, the Addendum, along with supporting technical studies including a Site
Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Technical Memorandum prepared by Dudek
dated November 10, 2025, demonstrates that the Project would not result in any new
Docusign Envelope ID: F2E195E9-BBB2-8F18-83E2-EA06159D2DC0
Resolution No. 2026-025 Page 2
significant environmental impacts, nor substantially increase the severity of previously
identified impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent or
supplemental environmental document is required only where there are substantial
changes to the project, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information of
substantial importance showing new or more severe significant environmental impacts;
and
Whereas, the City finds that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 are present, and that the previously adopted IS/MND, together with the
Addendum, adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the Project; and
Whereas, the Project site is located within the Planned Residential (PR)-22 zoning
district and designated Town Center Neighborhood by the Palm Desert General Plan,
and is consistent with applicable land use, zoning, and density standards; and
Whereas, the Project has been separately evaluated for consistency with the City’s
General Plan and qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15183, as it is consistent with the development density and standards evaluated in the
City’s certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2015081020) and would
not result in peculiar impacts; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
February 17, 2026, a continued public hearing from February 3, 2026 and approved the
Project by Resolutions Nos. 2913 and 2914 subsequently, including the Addendum to the
IS/MND and CEQA determinations; and
Whereas, on February 27, 2026, Supporters Alliance for Environmental
Responsibility (SAFER) (“Appellant”) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision, asserting that the Addendum is improper, cumulative impacts were not
adequately analyzed, and that the Project does not qualify for CEQA streamlining; and
Whereas, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on April 9,
2026, this item was considered and continued to a date uncertain ; and
Whereas, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 28,
2026, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and all
written and oral testimony was considered; and
Whereas, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the entire
administrative record, including the adopted IS/MND, the Addendum, technical studies,
staff reports, Planning Commission actions, the appeal, and all public testimony; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the Addendum was properly prepared in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, that the Project’s environmental
Docusign Envelope ID: F2E195E9-BBB2-8F18-83E2-EA06159D2DC0
Resolution No. 2026-025 Page 3
impacts (including cumulative impacts) were adequately analyzed, and that the Project
would result in impacts equal to or less than those previously analyzed; and
Whereas, the City Council further finds that the Project qualifies for CEQA
streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and would not result in peculiar
environmental impacts not previously analyzed or mitigated; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the Appellant has not provided substantial
evidence, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, demonstrating that the Project
would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and
Whereas, the Appellant has submitted no factual data, technical studies, or expert
analysis, and mere assertions do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA; and
Whereas, based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council finds that
the CEQA documentation reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency
and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may
result in significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission’s approval of the
Project was appropriate and consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Palm
Desert Municipal Code.
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
denial of the appeal and confirmation of the Planning Commission approval .
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
Section 2. Compliance with CEQA.
The City Council hereby finds that the Addendum to the previously adopted Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2022120165) was
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164. The City Council further finds and dete rmines that the
Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment.
Docusign Envelope ID: F2E195E9-BBB2-8F18-83E2-EA06159D2DC0
Resolution No. 2026-025 Page 4
Section 3. CEQA Findings.
The City Council finds that the previously adopted IS/MND, together with the Addendum
and supporting technical studies, adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the
Project, including cumulative impacts, and demonstrates that none of the condition s
described in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
Subsequent EIR or Subsequent Negative Declaration have occurred, for the reasons set
forth in the Addendum (e.g., the Project will not result in any new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts).
Section 4. CEQA Streamlining (Section 15183).
As separate and independent bases, the City Council finds that the Project does not
necessitate further CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. The
Project is consistent with the land use designations and development densities
established by the General Plan and analyzed in the certified General Plan EIR
(SCH#2015081020). Further, the Project would not result in a significant impact that is
peculiar to the Project or the Project site; or was not identified as a significant effect in t he
certified General Plan EIR; or was previously identified significant effects which, as a
result of substantial new information that was not known at the time that the General Plan
EIR was certified, or was determined to have a more severe adverse impact than
discussed in the General Plan EIR; and any potential significant impacts associated with
the Project are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR and can be
substantially mitigated by the implementation of mitigation measures prev iously adopted
in the General Plan EIR and uniformly applied policies and standards and associated
standard practices.
Section 5. Rejection of Appeal Arguments.
The City Council finds that the Appellant has not provided substantial evidence, as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, supporting a fair argument that the Project
may result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts requiring additiona l
environmental review.
Section 6. Approval Upheld.
The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Precise Plan
No. 25-0006 and Tentative Tract Map No. 39307, including the Addendum to the IS/MND,
CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and all associated
findings and conditions of approval.
Section 7. Appeal Determination.
The City Council confirms the decision by the Planning Commission approving the
Project, and following the City Council’s action, the City shall file the appropriate Notice
of Determination and Notice of Exemption within five (5) working days in accordance with
CEQA.
Docusign Envelope ID: F2E195E9-BBB2-8F18-83E2-EA06159D2DC0
Resolution No. 2026-025 Page 5
Section 8. The custodian of the documents and other materials, which constitute the
record of proceedings, shall be the City Clerk. The location of these items is 73510 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
Section 9. Execution of Resolution.
The Mayor signs this Resolution, and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage
and adoption thereof.
Adopted on May 28, 2026.
Evan Trubee
Mayor
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
I, Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2026-025 is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on May 28, 2026, by the
following vote:
AYES: HARNIK, MORENO, NESTANDE, PRADETTO, AND TRUBEE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of Palm Desert, California, on __________________.
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: F2E195E9-BBB2-8F18-83E2-EA06159D2DC0
6/5/2026