Agenda packet, regular meeting — Palm Desert City Council, January 8, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

Upon adoption of the resolution, the Borrower will execute an Indemnity Agreement holding the City harmless from any claims or liabilities arising from its approval of the resolution or CMFA’s issuance of the Bonds.

Taking this action will allow CMFA to complete the bond issuance and enable the Borrower to proceed with construction of a major affordable housing development that supports the City’s goals for increased housing opportunities and alignment with regional housing needs.

Legal Review:

This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

Strategic Plan:

This Project supports the City’s Envision Palm Desert – Forward Together (2013–2033) Strategic Plan goals under the Land Use, Housing & Open Space and Transportation chapters.  Land Use, Housing & Open Space: Facilitates development of high-quality housing for residents of all income levels and supports the creation of well-planned, mixed-use neighborhoods.
 Transportation: Promotes multimodal connectivity and access along key corridors, including Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, consistent with the City’s long-term mobility and neighborhood design objectives.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City resulting from approval of the Borrower’s request.

Adoption of a resolution would allow CMFA to issue the Bonds for the financing of the Project, consisting of 298 units in total, including 295 affordable rental units and 3 manager units, to be constructed at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Indemnity Agreement

3. Public Hearing 10-Day Notice
535
City of Palm Desert
TEFRA Hearing

Page 4 of 4 ends

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AWARENESS CHECKLIST:
☒ Site-Specific Property Interest – Councilmembers should check if they own or lease real property within 1,000 feet of the project site (Gov. Code § 87103(b); FPPC Reg. 18702.2). ☐ SB 1439 Applicability (Campaign Contributions) – Applies to licenses, permits, or other entitlements for use, and to contracts or franchise agreements other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts.

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): Sinatra Family Housing, LP, an affiliate of Affirmed Housing Group, Wesley R. Lind and Arlette Lind, Trustees of the Wesley R. Lind and Arlette Lind Living Trust Dated October 30, 2000, Property Owner
Councilmembers should review any campaign contributions received within the last 12 months from parties or participants to the proceeding and must not accept contributions over $500 from those parties for 12 months following the final decision (Gov. Code § 84308).

Note: These indicators are informational and do not constitute a legal determination. Each Councilmember is responsible for identifying and disclosing any disqualifying interests in accordance with the Political Reform Act and FPPC regulations. 536
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF

REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE

AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE PALM

DESERT FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND FRANK
SINATRA DRIVE (APN 694-200-021)
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert (“City”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) is authorized to assist in financing for projects that promote the public good and serve residents of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, since the Project is located within the territorial boundaries of the City, CMFA has requested that the City Council of the City (“City Council”) approve the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) by CMFA in order to satisfy the public approval requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), in order to finance the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of the Palm Desert Family Housing Project (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project will consist of a total of 298 multifamily rental housing units, including 295 income-restricted units serving households earning between 30% and 70% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Riverside County, and 3 non-restricted manager units, with the following floorplan mix: 7 studios, 113 one-bedroom units, 101 two-bedroom units, 58 three-bedroom units, and 16 four-bedroom units; and WHEREAS, the financing of the Project will be undertaken in connection with 4% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and the issuance of the Bonds through CMFA; and WHEREAS, the City Council is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, and Section 6500 et seq. of the California Government Code, the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA may be approved by the City following a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing date; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted the public hearing on January 8, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard concerning the Project and the proposed issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the City Council now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 6500 et seq. of the California Government Code. 537
Resolution No. 2025-___ Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA in a principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000 to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of the Project. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this Resolution constitute approval of the plan of finance for the Project and the issuance of the Bonds for the purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f); provided, however, that this Resolution shall not constitute an approval by the City Council of the Project for any other purpose.

SECTION 3. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City to (i) provide any financing or refinancing for the Project, (ii) issue the Bonds, (iii) make any contribution, expenditure, or incur any liability in connection therewith, (iv) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; or (v) take any further action with respect to CMFA. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the City, and the City shall have no financial or moral responsibility for the repayment of the Bonds.

SECTION 4. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as are necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, consistent with applicable law and the City’s established procedures.

SECTION 5. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of CMFA of all financing documents relating thereot to which CMFA is a party. The City Council shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

ADOPTED ON ________________, 2026.

EVAN TRUBEE
MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANTHONY J. MEJIA

CITY CLERK
538
Resolution No. 2025-___ Page 3
I, Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2026-__ 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 _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

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
539
540

INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
This Indemnity Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this 8th day of January, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “City”), and SINATRA FAMILY HOUSING, LP, a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”).

R E C I T A L S
A. WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the City conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the issuance by the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) of tax-exempt revenue bonds in a principal amount not to exceed Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000) to finance the Palm Desert Family Housing Project (the “Project”), a 298-unit affordable multifamily rental housing development located at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, Palm Desert, California (APN 694-200-021); and
B. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 6500 et seq. of the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 8, 2026, and adopted Resolution No. 2026-___, approving the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA for purposes of satisfying federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-035 on June 12, 2025, establishing the City’s Records Retention Schedule; and
C. WHEREAS, as a condition of adopting the Resolution, the City requires that the Borrower indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, and liabilities arising from or related to the City’s consideration or approval of the Resolution or CMFA’s issuance of the Bonds.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein, and the mutual covenants set forth below, the parties agree as follows:

1. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and shall remain in effect with respect to any Claims arising from or relating to the Resolution, the Bonds, or the Project, notwithstanding any completion, defeasance, redemption, or other termination of the Bonds.

2. Indemnification. From and after the execution of this Agreement, the Borrower hereby agrees to indemnify, defend upon written tender by the City (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents (collectively, the “City Parties”) from and against any and all legal actions, proceedings, claims, demands, liabilities, losses, judgments, damages, awards, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs) (collectively, “Claims”) arising directly or indirectly out of or related to the City’s consideration of, hearing on, or approval of the issuance of the Bonds as provided in Resolution No. 2026-___ adopted on January 8, 2026 or the CMFA’s consideration, approval, structuring, sale, issuance, validation, remarketing, or administration of the Bonds or the Project, including, 541
without limitation, any Claims alleging violation of federal, state, or local law, including the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), environmental review requirements, or other challenges to the City’s proceedings or approvals.

This obligation shall survive the adoption of the Resolution, the issuance of the Bonds, and any termination of this Agreement. The obligations under this Section 1 are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any indemnity, defense, or reimbursement obligations in any other agreement between Borrower, CMFA, or the City. Nothing herein shall be construed to require indemnification to the extent caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

3. No City Obligation. The Borrower acknowledges and agrees that the Bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness, obligation, or liability of the City. The City shall have no financial, legal, or moral responsibility for the repayment of the Bonds or any obligation of CMFA or the Borrower related thereto). Borrower acknowledges that the City is not an issuer, underwriter, or obligated person with respect to the Bonds, has no continuing disclosure obligations, and is not a party to the financing documents. Borrower shall not state or imply otherwise in any offering or disclosure materials. The City expressly reserves all immunities and defenses available under applicable law, including without limitation Government Code §§ 818.4 and 818.8.

4. Governing Law; Construction. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect at the time of execution. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to its fair meaning as if prepared jointly by both parties. Venue for any action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall lie exclusively in the state courts located in Riverside County, California.

5. Modification; Waivers. No modification, amendment, or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and duly authorized and executed by both parties. No waiver of any breach shall be deemed a waiver of any other or subsequent breach.

6. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any party or circumstance, shall be held invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of such term or provision to other parties or circumstances shall not be affected and shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the matters covered herein and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, and representations, whether oral or written. The recitals are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.

8. Counterparts; Electronic Delivery. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Execution and delivery by electronic means shall be valid and binding for all purposes. Electronic signatures shall be deemed original signatures to the fullest extent permitted by law.

9. Notices. All notices, tenders of defense, and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed given when (a) delivered personally, (b) sent by 542
nationally recognized overnight courier, or (c) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified, returnreceipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties at the addresses on file with the City Clerk (or such other address as a party may designate by notice).

10. Further Assurances; Cooperation. Borrower shall execute and deliver such further documents and take such further actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, including cooperating with the City in responding to any CPRA requests, subpoenas, or audits relating to the Resolution, the Bonds, or the Project.

11. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns; provided, however, Borrower shall not assign this Agreement without the City’s prior written consent, which may be withheld in the City’s sole discretion.

12. Independent Obligations; No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Borrower’s obligations hereunder are independent of any obligations of CMFA or any other person. This Agreement is for the benefit of the City only and shall not create any rights in favor of any third party, except as expressly provided herein.

13. No Agency; Partnership. Nothing herein shall create any agency, partnership, joint venture, or employment relationship between Borrower and the City. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
[Signatures appear on next page]
543

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the City have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

SINATRA FAMILY HOUSING, LP
a California Limited Partnership
By: ___________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: _________________________
By: ___________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: _________________________

CITY OF PALM DESERT
a California Municipal Corporation
By: ___________________________
Evan Trubee
Mayor
ATTEST:

By: ______________________________
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
544

C I T Y O F P A L M
D E S E R T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760-346-0611
[email protected]

CITY OF PALM DESERT

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING

THE ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PALM DESERT

FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
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 8, 2026.

The City Council meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449, this meeting may be conducted as a hybrid meeting allowing public access via teleconference or in person. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at https://www.palmdesert.gov/connect/city-council no later than December 29, 2025.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The City Council of the City of Palm Desert (the “City”) will conduct a public hearing as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), to hear and consider information concerning a proposed plan of financing providing for the issuance by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) of taxexempt revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such bonds in one or more series from time to time, in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000, to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, and development of a qualified residential rental project located at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive (APN 694-200-021), Palm Desert, California (the “Project”).

The Project, to be known as the Palm Desert Family Housing Project, will consist of 298 rental units for households earning between 30% and 70% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Riverside County, including 7 studios, 113 one-bedroom units, 101 twobedroom units, 58 three-bedroom units, 16 four-bedroom units, and 3 manager units.

The facilities are to be owned by Sinatra Family Housing, LP, a California limited partnership or a partnership of which Affirmed Housing or a related person to the developer is the general partner (the “Borrower”).

COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION:

Those wishing to comment on this application may either appear in person at the public 545
hearing or submit written comments, which must be received by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing. Written comments should be sent to the City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, Attention: City Clerk, or emailed to [email protected].

Si necesita ayuda con esta notificación, por favor llame a la Ciudad de Palm Desert y comuníquese con Damian Olivares al (760) 346-0611.

Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
City Clerk, City of Palm Desert
PUBLISH:

546

Page 1 of 7 ends

CITY OF PALM DESERT

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2026
PREPARED BY: Carlos Flores, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

STANDARDS AND A CORRESPONDING ZONING ORDINANCE

AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, MODIFYING SECTIONS OF PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 25 PERTAINING TO

THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND FINDING THE PROJECT IS

EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.”
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

Executive Summary
The City Council is being requested to consider a City-initiated proposal to establish Hillside Residential Design Standards (“Hillside Standards”) applicable to residential development within the Hillside Planned Residential (“HPR”) Zoning district and make certain necessary amendments to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (“PDMC”).

The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2909 on December 16, 2025, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Hillside Standards and corresponding Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).

Background
The City of Palm Desert (the “City”) has long worked to balance protecting its hillsides and preserving views with accommodating single-family homes. Over the years, the City has used neighborhood master plans, updated hillside zoning, grading rules that protect natural landforms, public design review, and the creation of parks and conservation easements to maintain this balance. Still, there are opportunities to improve the consistency and quality of future development. There are concerns that some hillside projects are too visible, that natural topography is being lost, and that the iconic views to and from the hills are being diminished.

On May 21, 2024, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement (City Contract No.

A47670) with John Kaliski Architects (“Consultant”), for assistance with the preparation of objective design standards for the hillside areas. Since May 2024, the Consultant has worked with City staff, the Architectural Review Commission (the “ARC”), the Planning Commission, City Council, and various stakeholders to develop the Hillside Standards. Below is a table summarizing these meetings:
547
City of Palm Desert
Hillside Residential Design Standards

Page 2 of 7 ends

Table 1 - Hillside Meetings
Date Meeting Discussion
December 12, 2024 City Council Formation of Hillside Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting consisting of Mayor Harnik and
Councilmember Pradetto
March 27, 2025 City Council – Study
Session
Presentation on existing conditions and
opportunities report
April 8, 2025 Hillside Tour Subcommittee goes on a tour of the HPR area with City staff and Consultant
June 18, 2025 Community Meeting Community meeting held at City Hall to discuss Hillside Standards
September 23, 2025 Joint ARC and
Planning Commission
Meeting
Review of first draft of Hillside Standards
October 20, 2025 City Council
Subcommittee meeting
Review of draft Hillside Standards
December 16, 2025 Planning Commission
Meeting
Adopted PC Resolution 2909
recommending City Council approve Hillside
Standards
The Consultant has prepared the final Hillside Standards for City Council consideration, incorporating feedback from City staff and stakeholders gathered through the meetings listed in Table 1.

Hillside Standards Document
The Hillside Standards (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) are organized by the following chapters:
1) Introduction
2) HPR Design Standards
3) HPR Compliance Checklist
4) Glossary
Chapter 1 - Introduction
This section introduces the document and outlines its applicability, exceptions, policy framework, objectives, use of the standards, and approval process.

Applicability
The Hillside Standards shall apply exclusively to single-family housing developments located in the HPR. The he HPR zone is generally located along the westernmost city limits and is bounded by areas west of Calle de Los Campesinos, south of Cahuilla Hills Park, and north of Silver Spur Manor, as shown in Attachment 4 (Map).

The Hillside Standards would not apply to or supersede any development that has its own design standards and/or Specific Plan, such as the Stone Eagle development. If a property owner demonstrates that an existing building pad in the HPR zone was approved by the City or County before incorporation of the City, a residential building and accessory structure(s) may be built on a previously approved building pad without a public hearing. 548
City of Palm Desert
Hillside Residential Design Standards

Page 3 of 7 ends

The total area of buildings in the HPR Zone shall be limited to 35 percent of the existing building pad area or a maximum of 2,625 square feet, whichever is less. The total building square footage may be increased up to 50 percent of the existing building pad area and a maximum of 5,250 square feet, whichever is less, with ARC approval, appealable to the Planning Commission.

Objectives
The introduction establishes objectives of the Hillside Standards, which includes: “clear base standards for the design of projects that will communicate the City’s expectations for design quality. The standards will also help ensure that the identity of the City, its views to and from the hills, are protected and enhanced with each new project. The objectives of the Hillside Residential Design Standards are:

1. Conserve views to and from the City of Palm Desert’s iconic hillsides and mountains.

2. Protect major ridges, public lands, public pathways and trails, and environmentally sensitive areas within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone (HPR). and Hillside Planned Residential Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay Zone (HPR, D).

3. Create a fit that blends the design and placement of buildings, structures, access roads and drives and the existing and natural hillside environment within the HPR and HPR, D Zone areas.

4. Minimize grading associated with building projects and realize graded slopes that merge with and are similar in appearance to the existing and natural topography of the hillsides within the HPR and HPR, D Zone areas.

5. Minimize visual intrusion caused by exterior lighting within the HPR and HPR, D Zone areas.

Process
As shown in the workflow in Section 1.5 (Page 5) of the Hillside Standards, new development within the HPR is proposed to follow the process below:
 Step 1: Confirm the project site is within the HPR zone and not located on a Major Ridgeline.
 Step 2: Review the Palm Desert General Plan and verify compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code Hillside Residential Development Standards.  Step 3: Ensure the project complies with Chapter 2 of the Hillside Residential Design Standards. Complete the HPR compliance checklist in Chapter 3 and submit a full Precise Plan application.
 Step 4: City staff reviews the project for compliance using the Chapter 3 HPR compliance checklist.
 Step 5a: If the project fully complies with the Hillside Standards, it proceeds directly to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
549
City of Palm Desert
Hillside Residential Design Standards

Page 4 of 7 ends

 Step 5b: If the project does not fully comply, it is reviewed by the ARC, then the Planning Commission for a recommendation, and finally the City Council for approval. Projects may request deviations from up to three standards in Chapter 2 through this process.

Chapter 2 - HPR Design Standards
The design standards in the document “assist project applicants and their designer’s understanding of the minimum design standards that shall be met.” The goal of the design standards is to be objective, without room for subjectivity or future interpretation that allow changes. The design standards are described in Chapter 2 and are organized as follows:
• Section 2.1: Hillside Grading and Ridgeline Protection. • Section 2.2: Site and Open Space.
• Section 2.3: Trees and Plants.
• Section 2.4: Structure, Building, and Accessory Buildings. • Section 2.5, Exterior Lighting.
• Section 2.6: Materials and Colors.

Below are examples of standards from each section:

2.1.4: Major Ridgeline protection. Any structure visible from Highway 74 shall be designed such that the highest point of the structure, inclusive of antennas, chimneys, flag poles, parapets, roof ridges, rooftop equipment, satellite dishes, and all building and any accessory components associated with the project, is set at or below any “Major Ridgeline” and within 100 feet of the building and any accessory component(s). Notwithstanding this requirement, if the Project utilizes an existing building pad as determined by the Director of Development Services, any structure and any accessory component associated with a project may not exceed the height limits otherwise required by the Palm Desert Municipal Code.

2.2.6. Structures at slopes greater than 20 percent. On slopes greater than 5:1 (20 percent), structures are prohibited.

2.3.1. Trees, density. A maximum of one tree may be planted for each 3,000 square feet of building pad area.

2.4.7. Roof slopes. No roof slope shall exceed a pitch of one unit vertical to three units horizontal (1:3).

2.5.6. Lighting, bistro and string lights. String and bistro lights are permitted but shall not exceed 60 feet in length and 250 square feet in area, be dimmable, not exceed an average of five maintained footcandles at grade, and be attached to the main structure at a height of not more than 12 feet above grade.

2.6.9. Building wall materials, secondary. In addition to the list of materials in Standard 2.6.8, a second material from the same list or as selected by the applicant may be utilized as secondary and accent materials on a maximum of 30 percent of the total exterior wall area. 550
City of Palm Desert
Hillside Residential Design Standards

Page 5 of 7 ends

Chapter 3 - HPR Compliance Checklist
The document includes a checklist for applicants and staff to use upon a complete application submittal. This checklist is a similar tool that was incorporated for the City-wide residential Multifamily and Mixed Use Objective Design Standards. Use of the checklist would guide project compliance with the Hillside Standards, determine the process, and provide a clear tool for the applicant, staff, and decision makers.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Attachment 1, Exhibit B)
To incorporate use of the Hillside Standards, the City has proposed an accompanying Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to codify the process changes described in this report, remove the subjective standards, and establish the Hillside Standards as the applicable standards for development with the HPR. Attachment 1, Exhibit B provides a redlined version of the changes to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) and Attachment 2 includes a clean version of said changes. PDMC Sections 25.10.050 Development Standards, 25.72.080 Hillside Development Plan, Commission Role, and 25.78.020 Hillside Development Plan are all proposed to be amended.

Environment Assessment/Environmental Review:

The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is not a “project,” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and concerns general policy and procedures.

Public Review:

Public noticing was conducted for the January 8, 2026, regular meeting of the City Council consistent with PDMC § 25.60.060. A public hearing notice was published in The Desert Sun on December 26, 2025, at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.

Table 1 in the staff report summarizes the public meetings held regarding the updated standards.

On March 27, 2025, City Council study session and the June 18, 2025, community meeting included mailed notices to all property owners and architects who had worked on a recent Hillside ordinance updates.

On March 27, 2025, an Engage Palm Desert webpage was launched to inform the public about the project, provide draft documents, and solicit community feedback.

On June 18, 2025, Community Meeting was attended by 12 participants, including property owners and architects. Attendees emphasized the need for standards that are clear and understandable for both property owners and project applicants.

Feedback gathered from all public meetings and site tours informed the consultant’s and staff’s recommendations on appropriate standards, process improvements, and existing site conditions. Key themes from public input included the importance of a clear checklist, architectural designs that blend with surrounding development, and the inclusion of flexibility within the standards
551
City of Palm Desert
Hillside Residential Design Standards

Page 6 of 7 ends

Legal Review:

This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

Appointed Body Recommendation:

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Ordinance
a. Exhibit A Hillside Residential Standards
b. Exhibit B Zoning Ordinance Amendment

2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Clean

3. Public Hearing Notice

4. HPR Boundary Map
552
City of Palm Desert
Hillside Residential Design Standards

Page 7 of 7 ends

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AWARENESS CHECKLIST:
☐ Site-Specific Property Interest – Councilmembers should check if they own or lease real property within 1,000 feet of the project site (Gov. Code § 87103(b); FPPC Reg. 18702.2). ☐ SB 1439 Applicability (Campaign Contributions) – Applies to licenses, permits, or other entitlements for use, and to contracts or franchise agreements other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts.

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): City of Palm Desert
Councilmembers should review any campaign contributions received within the last 12 months from parties or participants to the proceeding and must not accept contributions over $500 from those parties for 12 months following the final decision (Gov. Code § 84308).

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

STANDARDS, MODIFYING SECTIONS OF PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL
CODE TITLE 25 PERTAINING TO THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

STANDARDS AND FINDING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM

FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CASE NO. ZOA 25-5001
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65800 et seq. provides for the amendment of any and all adopted City of Palm Desert (“City”) zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) is initiated by the City of Palm Desert to adopt Hillside Residential Design Standards and modifies sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Title 25 (Zoning) to incorporate the standards and processes to use for new residential developments within the Hillside Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Hillside Residential Design Standards apply to single-family housing developments located in the HPR and does not apply to multifamily developments, mixed-use developments, or single-family developments outside of the HPR zone. The Hillside Standards would not apply to or supersede any development that has its own design standards and/or Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of the Local Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code section 65100 et seq.), and the City’s applicable ordinances and resolutions with respect to approval of amendments to Title 25 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”); 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, the Project has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of CEQA” Resolution No. 2024-035, in that the Director of Development Services has determined that the action will not have a foreseeable significant impact on the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); therefore, no further environmental review is necessary at this time; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
555
Ordinance No _ Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on December 16, 2025, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment (“ZOA”) 25-5001 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2909 recommending the City Council approve the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on January 8, 2026, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment (“ZOA”) 25-5001; 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, to exist to justify approval of said request:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert hereby finds that:

1. The City of Palm Desert, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and

2. The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to establish by ordinance the regulations for land use and development.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is not a “project,” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and concerns general policy and procedures.

SECTION 3. Code Amendment. The City Council approves and adopts the Hillside Residential Design Standards and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 25-5001, as depicted in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively, attached hereto.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 5. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and post or publish this Ordinance as required by law.

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The custodian of records for this Ordinance is the City Clerk and the records comprising the administrative record are located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA.
556
Ordinance No _ Page 3
SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

ADOPTED ON ________.

EVAN TRUBEE
MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANTHONY J. MEJIA

CITY CLERK
I, Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. ____ is a full, true, and correct copy, and was introduced at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council on _________, 2026, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on __________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

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
557
558
City of Palm Desert CA, Draft December 2023
Hillside Residential
Design Standards

CITY OF PALM DESERT
NOVEMBER 2025559

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Council
Mayor Jan Harnik
Mayor Pro Tem Evan Trubee
Council Member Karina Quintanilla
Council Member Joe Pradetto
Council Member Gina Nestande
Planning Commission
Commissioner John Collum
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna
Commissioner John Greenwood
Commissioner Ron Gregory
Commissioner Lindsay Holt
Commissioner Alex Meyerhoff
Commissioner Joshua Nickerson
Architectural Review Commission
Commissioner James Blakely
Commissioner Dean Wallace Colvard
Commissioner Geoff Gregory
Commissioner Nicholas Latkovic
Commissioner Michael McAuliffe
Commissioner James McIntosh
Commissioner Francisco Sanchez
Commissioner John Vuksic
City Staff
Richard Cannone, AICP, Assistant City Manager
Rosie Lua, Director of Development Services
Carlos Flores, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services Consultant Team
John Kaliski Architects (JKA)
Tajima Open Design Office
560

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Applicability & Exceptions 2

1.2 Palm Desert Hillside Character & Policy Framework 2

1.3 HPR District Conservation & Design Objectives 3

1.4 How to Use the Standards 4

1.5 HPR Design Standards Approval Process 5
2 HPR DESIGN STANDARDS 6

2.1 Hillside Grading & Ridgeline Protection 7

2.2 Site & Open Space 9

2.3 Trees & Plants 12

2.4 Structure, Building, & Accessory Buildings 15

2.5 Exterior Lighting 20

2.6 Colors & Materials 21
3 HPR COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 25
Hillside Planned Residential Compliance Checklist 26
4 GLOSSARY 41
561
This page is intentionally blank.
562

1.1 Palm Desert Hillside Character & Policy Framework

1.2 HPR District Conservation & Design Objectives

1.3 Applicability & Exceptions

1.4 How to Use the Standards

1.5 HPR Design Standards Approval Process
1 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD563S 2 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2 Palm Desert Hillside Character & Policy Framework
Palm Desert’s mountain vistas, and in particular
views to and from the Cahuilla Hills west of State
Route 74 / Pines to Palms Highway, establish an
iconic backdrop for this city’s sense of place and
enjoyment. Rising steeply from the desert floor, the
tan-colored hills streaked with rust tones shift from
light grays to purples, depending upon the time of
day. Up close, sandy, gray gravelly, and rock strewn
trails wind through hilly open spaces spotted with
creosote bushes, Cottonwood trees in ravines, and
all manner of blooming and clustered native plants.

Palm Desert policy has long sought to balance
conservation of these hillsides and the views to
and from them with the single-family homes that
typically dot this landscape. Over decades, the city
has accomplished this balance through master
plans for residential neighborhoods, evolving
hillside zoning requirements, grading criteria to
preserve the natural land forms, public design
review to ensure architectural quality, and the
creation of parklands and conservation easements.

Yet, there are still opportunities to more
consistently ensure the quality of future
development and design outcomes. Palm Desert
stakeholders have increasingly expressed concerns
that some hillside developments are too visible,
that the natural beauty and topography of the hills
are being degraded as developments occur, and
that views to and from the hills, the City’s iconic
backdrop, is being diminished.

The City’s General Plan envisions Palm Desert
as a “...city with stunning views of the hillsides
and mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley.”
This is supported with numerous land use and
open space policies to conserve the hillsides,
which together strategically shape this policy’s
design standards.

The design standards of this policy shall only apply to single-family housing developments located in the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Palm Desert zoning designation. This policy does not apply to multifamily developments, mixed-use developments, or single-family developments outside of the HPR zone.

The design standards are also not applicable to non-residential development.

If a property owner can demonstrate that an existing building pad in the HPR zone was approved by the City or County before incorporation of the City of Palm Desert, a residential building and accessory structure(s) may be built on a previously approved building pad without a public hearing. The total area of buildings shall be limited to 35 percent of the existing building pad area or a maximum of 2,625 square feet, whichever is less. The total building square footage may be increased up to 50 percent of the existing building pad area and a maximum of 5,250 square feet, whichever is less, with Architectural Review Commission approval, appealable to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission, may approve a precise plan of design through a public hearing process that modifies the standards of this Section. Said precise plan shall take into consideration any and all circumstances of the project including, but not limited to, viewshed, existing and proposed topography, landscape and site improvements, color, texture, profile, and components of buildings and structures on the lot with the exception that no building pad shall be approved that exceeds 14, 520 square feet in size and the total area of buildings on a lot shall not exceed 5,250 square feet in size.

1.1 Applicability & Exceptions
564
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 3 View looking east from the West Hills area.

1.3 HPR District Conservation & Design Objectives
The conservation of Palm Desert’s hillsides
and mountainscapes is a key city objective that
contributes to the welfare, safety, and beauty of
the town. The maintenance of views to and from
the hills and the natural Sonoran Desert setting
are an everyday experience that is enjoyed and
adds value for all residents, local businesses, and
visitors. The hillsides establish the backdrop for
Palm Desert’s unique sense of place. Development
within the hillside districts must defer to and
preserve to the greatest extent feasible views
to and from this existing and treasured natural
landscape. To accomplish this objective, Palm
Desert will utilize design, landscape, and grading
parameters to establish clear base standards for
the design of projects that will communicate
the City’s expectations for design quality. The
standards will also help ensure that the identity
of the city, its views to and from the hills, are
protected and enhanced with each new project.

The objectives of the Hillside Residential Design
Standards are:

1. Conserve views to and from Palm Desert’s
iconic hillsides and mountains.

2. Protect major ridges, public lands, public
pathways and trails, and environmentally
sensitive areas within the Hillside
Planned Residential Zone (HPR). and
Hillside Planned Residential Drainageway,
Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay Zone
(HPR, D).

3. Create a fit that blends the design and
placement of buildings, structures, access
roads and drives and the existing and
natural hillside environment within the
HPR and HPR, D Zone areas.

4. Minimize grading associated with building
projects and realize graded slopes that
merge with and are similar in appearance
to the existing and natural topography of
the hillsides within the HPR and HPR, D
Zone areas.

5. Minimize visual intrusion caused by
exterior lighting within the HPR and HPR,
D Zone areas.
565
4 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.4 How to Use the Standards
This policy is a primary design reference and tool
to use when designing new hillside single-family
projects in Palm Desert. The design standards
of this policy assist project applicants and their
designer’s understanding of the minimum design
standards that shall be met. The design standards
are described in Chapter 2 and are organized
as follows:
• Section 2.1: Hillside Grading and Ridgeline
Protection.
• Section 2.2: Site and Open Space.
• Section 2.3: Trees and Plants.
• Section 2.4: Structure, Building, and
Accessory Buildings.
• Section 2.5, Exterior Lighting.
• Section 2.6: Materials and Colors.

The below steps should be followed at the start of
designing new projects.

1. Review the Palm Desert General Plan to
understand the goals and policies for new
development.

2. Review the Hillside Planned Residential
development standards in the Palm
Desert Municipal Code (Chapter 25.10)
to determine the requirements that will
shape the site and building design.

3. Review the design standards in Chapter
2 of this policy to identify the applicable
design standards for a single-family
hillside development.

4. Throughout the design process utilize the
checklist in Chapter 3, Hillside Residential
Design Standards Compliance Checklist,
to ensure that all design criteria are met
before submission to the City for approval.

For more information regarding the
approval process, see Section 1.5: Hillside
Residential Design Standards Approval
Process.

Discretionary projects require approval from the
Architectural Review Commission. The City of Palm
Desert Director of Development Services may
expand upon and/or regularly update the design
standards in this policy as per their discretion. The
removal of any design standards in this policy can
only be decided upon by the Planning Commission
or City Council.
566
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 5 Applicant reviews the Palm Desert General Plan and confirms project compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code hillside residential development standards.

STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
STEP 5
STEP 6
Project complies with Chapter 2 of Hillside Residential Design Standards.

Applicant fills out the HPR compliance checklist in Chapter 3 and submits a complete application.

Applicant confirms that proposed project site is located within the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone and not on a Major Ridgeline (see Figure 1:

Ridgeline Map, on page 8 of this document).

City Staff reviews proposed project for compliance with Hillside Residential Standards using the HPR compliance checklist in Chapter 3.

Project is not compliant.

Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) reviews
project for a maximum of 3
design standard deviations.

Planning Commission (PC) reviews project against PDMC findings and land use for compliance.

City Council (CC) reviews
project for compliance.

Project is compliant.

Project Approved
ARC approves 3
design standard
deviations.
return for Staff compliance only
Applicant may return to ARC as needed to achieve compliance.

PC approves
project.

CC approves
project.

1.5 HPR Design Standards Approval Process
567
6 2.1 Hillside Grading & Ridgeline Protection

2.2 Site & Open Space

2.3 Trees & Plants

2.4 Structure, Building & Accessory Buildings

2.5 Exterior Lighting

2.6 Colors & Materials

CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 2 HILLSIDE PLANNED

RESIDENTIAL

DESIGN STANDARDS
568
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 7

2.1 HILLSIDE GRADING & RIDGELINE PROTECTION

2.1.1. Grading. No grading, inclusive of cuts and fills, in excess of one cubic yard of earth per four square feet of total building pad area shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the Director of Development Services. The Director may approve grading up to two additional cubic yards per four square feet of lot area per lot after making all of the following findings. a. Building and Safety and Land Development Engineering have both determined that such grading is required to
provide access driveways, pedestrian pathways, drainage facilities, and/or dwelling and allowed accessory building foundations.
b. Project graded slopes have a natural appearance inclusive of landscape.
c. Building and Safety and Land Development Services have determined that grading will not cause erosion of slopes on abutting or adjacent properties.

Notwithstanding the above requirements, corrective grading as determined by Building and Safety and Land Development Engineering may be allowed as needed to fix issues that occur immediately precedent to, during, or in the aftermath of a storm or seismic event that damages the functionality and safety of existing landforms, drainage ways, and public rights-of-way, trails, pathways, and access drives.

2.1.2. Grading abutting public land and conservation easements. No earth shall be graded within 50 feet of the boundaries of any abutting public land as established by a survey, or conservation, or drainage easement, either abutting, adjoining, or within a project site as noted in a title report.

2.1.3. Graded slope appearance. Graded slopes shall utilize landform grading and be planted with plant materials as noted in Section 2.3.

2.1.4. Major Ridgeline protection. Any structure visible from Highway 74 shall be designed such that the highest point of the structure, inclusive of antennas, chimneys, flag poles, parapets, roof ridges, rooftop equipment, satellite dishes, and all building and any accessory components associated with the project, is set at or below any “Major Ridgeline” and within 100 feet of the building and any accessory component(s). Notwithstanding this requirement, if the Project utilizes an existing building pad as determined by the Director of Development Services, any structure and any accessory component associated with a project may not exceed the height limits otherwise required by the Palm Desert Municipal Code.

This single-family home is set
beneath a major ridgeline. See
Standard 2.1.4.
◄
569
◄ Figure 1: Ridgeline Map.

MAJOR RIDGELINE

MINOR RIDGELINE

HILLSIDE PLANNED

RESIDENTIAL ZONE
8 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
570
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 9

2.2 SITE & OPEN SPACE

2.2.1. Density. Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. All lots will be entitled to at least one unit.

2.2.2. Structures at Major Ridgelines. Structures built on or across a Major Ridgeline, as noted in Figure 1: Ridgeline Map, is prohibited.

2.2.3. Horizontal setbacks at Major Ridgelines. Structures shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from a major ridgeline.

Structures on the building pad are
set back a minimum of 50 feet from a
Major Ridgeline. See Standard 2.2.3.

Structures must be at least 50
feet away from a Major Ridgeline.

Structures within 100 feet of a Major
Ridgeline are set at least 30 feet
below the Ridgeline. See Standards

2.2.3. and 2.2.4.
◄
◄
50 ft min
Major Ridgeline
Structure
50 ft min and within 100 ft
Major Ridgeline
Edge of Building Pad
30 ft min

2.2.4. Vertical setbacks at Major Ridgelines. The grade adjacent to portions of a structure within 100 feet of a Major Ridgeline shall be set a minimum of 30 feet below the Ridgeline.

2.2.5. Building pad, location at Major Ridgelines. New building pads shall be set a minimum of 50 feet from a Major Ridgeline and be graded such that every portion of the building pad is a minimum of 30 feet below the Ridgeline.
571

2.2.10. Utilities. Any and all poles, overhead wires and lines, cables, transformers, and switchgear associated with the provision of on-site electrical service shall be placed underground. Any pipes associated with provision of electrical, water, or gas service shall be placed underground, or if attached to the structure shall be the same color as the structure. Electrical transformers and switch gear may be mounted on ground pads if fully screened from view by walls, maximum 50 percent open and colored per the color allowances in Section 2.6.

2.2.11. Fences and walls, location. Fences and walls shall only be located on building pads. Notwithstanding this requirement, retaining walls and other City requirements are permitted at any location on a lot.

2.2.12. Fence and wall height. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height as measured from the adjacent grade.

Face of
structure
Edge of
building pad
Top of Slope
20 ft min
Toe of Slope
20 ft min
or H/2
H

2.2.6. Structures at slopes greater than 20 percent. On slopes greater than 5:1 (20 percent), structures are prohibited.

2.2.7. Building pad area at new building pads. The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading for a new building pad shall not exceed 7,500 square feet.

2.2.8. Building pad area at existing building pads. An existing building pad that is less than 7,500 square feet may be added to such that the maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 7,500 square feet.

2.2.9. Siting of buildings and structures at tops and toes of slopes.

Structures set on a building pad shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the top edge of the building slope. Structures in relationship to the toe of an adjoining slope greater than 5:1 (20 percent) shall be set back a minimum of half the height of the slope or 20 feet, whichever is less.

A minimum 50 feet separates the new
building pad from a Major Ridgeline.

See standard 2.2.5.
◄
10 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
572
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 11

2.2.13. Retaining walls. A maximum of two freestanding vertical walls, or two walls sloped inward at an angle of 60 degrees or more from the base of the wall, may be built on any
lot. No wall shall exceed a maximum of 150 feet in length without a minimum five-foot horizontal offset in plane or the initialization of a curved wall segment with a radius that is drawn perpendicular to the wall with a minimum
length of 600 feet. If the maximum two freestanding walls are designed so that one is vertically above the other, the minimum horizontal distance between the two walls shall be six feet.

Fence or wall
Fence or wall
Building
pad Two freestanding walls less than 150
feet in length sit on the building pad.

See Standard 2.2.13.
◄

2.2.14. Swimming pools and equipment. Private swimming pools and associated equipment shall be located within the boundaries of the approved building pad. All swimming pool equipment shall be housed in a building or be located behind a fence or wall a minimum of four feet in height that meets the fence and wall standards in this Section.

Swimming pool and enclosed pool
equipment are within the building pad.

See Standard 2.2.14.
◄
A swimming pool located on a
hillside building pad. See Standard

2.2.14. ◄
Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Building Pad
Pool Equipment
Enclosure
573

2.2.15. Private sports courts. Private sports courts shall be located within the boundaries of the approved building pad. Any fences or walls associated with a sports court shall meet the fence and wall standards in this Section. Notwithstanding any other design standards in this Section a fence with a transparency of 80 percent or greater may be utilized when the fence is set back from the edge of the building pad such that the height of the fence is equal to or less than the depth of the fence from the building pad edge, and the fence in no case exceeds 12 feet in height.

2.2.16. Common open space conservation. All common open space shall be conserved and maintained for that purpose as
shown on the approved plans. The applicant of a project shall choose one or a combination of the following methods of administering common open space:
a. Dedication of common open space to the City, which is subject to formal acceptance.
b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corporation or other entity within a project boundary to ensure the perpetual maintenance of all common open space.
c. Retention of ownership, control, and maintenance of
all common open space by the owner of a project; all
privately owned common open space shall continue
as such and shall only be used in accordance with the
approved plan; any approved land use restrictions shall be contained in all deeds to ensure that the common
open space is permanently conserved according to the
approved plan; said deed restrictions shall run with the land and be for the benefit of present as well as future owners, and shall contain a prohibition against partition of common open space.

2.3 TREES & PLANTS

2.3.1. Trees, density. A maximum of one tree may be planted for each 3,000 square feet of building pad area.

2.3.2. Trees, location. Planting of trees within 150 feet of a Major Ridgeline is prohibited. Trees greater than 150 feet from a Major Ridgeline must be planted a minimum of 30 feet
below the elevation of the closest major hillside ridge. Trees within 50 feet of a minor hillside ridge must be planted within an approved building pad or at an elevation a
minimum of 30 feet below the elevation of the closest minor hillside ridge. See Section 2.1 for a Ridgeline Map.

A sport court is located within
the building pad boundaries. See
Standard 2.2.15.
◄
12 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
574
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 13

2.3.3. Trees, spacing. Where more than two trees are planted, trees shall be spaced such that a straight line can not be drawn through more than two trees. Notwithstanding the
tree density and spacing requirements noted, if a structure is located west of Highway 74 and within 600 feet of the Highway 74 right-of-way, and the average elevation of the building pad or grade adjoining the building is within 50 feet in elevation of that portion of Highway 74 closest to the building pad or grade adjoining the building, allowed tree species shall be continuously planted in front of and within 30 feet of any east and south facing building walls, with trees not to exceed 30 feet on center along the length of these building walls.

2.3.4. Trees, allowed species within building pads. Where trees are planted within building pads, utilize species from the following list. All other tree species are prohibited.
a. Blue Palo Verde. Cercidium floridum.
b. Desert Willow. Chilopsis linearis.
c. Honey Mesquite. Prosopis glandulosa. May be a thornless cultivar inclusive of Prosopis glandulosa ‘Maverick’ or Prosopis glandulosa ‘AZT.’
d. Velvet Mesquite. Prosopis velutina (aka Neltuma velutina). e. Ironwood. Olneya tesota.

The tree is located 30 feet below
the Major Ridgeline and within the
building pad. See Standard 2.3.18.
◄
Tree
Edge of building pad
Major Ridgeline
30 ft min
> 150 ft
Building pad
Tree
Tree CL
CL
Building
Pad
30 ft max o.c.
30 ft max o.c.

N
Honey Mesquite. ◄
Ironwood. ◄
575
Creosote bush.

Desert sand verbena.

Wild Marigold.

Interior California buckwheat.
◄
◄
◄
◄
Rosy apricot mallow. ◄

2.3.5. Trees, allowed species outside of building pads. Where trees are planted outside of building pads, utilize species from the following list. All other tree species are prohibited.
a. Honey Mesquite. Prosopis glandulosa. May be a thornless cultivar inclusive of Prosopis glandulosa ‘Maverick’ or Prosopis glandulosa ‘AZT.’
b. Ironwood. Olneya tesota.

2.3.6. Shrubs and perennials, density. A maximum of one shrub or perennial may be planted for each 500 square feet of lot area. Where more than two shrubs or perennials are planted, they shall be spaced such that a straight line can not be drawn through more than two plants.

2.3.7. Shrubs and perennials, location. Shrub and perennials shall only be planted within the approved building pad area and any area subject to landform grading.

2.3.8. Shrubs and perennials, species. Where shrubs and perennials are planted, utilize species from the following list. All other shrub and perennial species are prohibited.
a. Perennials:
i. Desert Sand Verbena. Abronia villosa.
ii. Wild Marigold. Baileya multiradiata.
iii. Interior California Buckwheat. Eriogonum
fasciculatum v. poliofolium.
iv. Whitestem Paperflower. Psilotrophe cooperi.
v. Desert Globemallow. Sphaeralcea ambigua.
vi. Rosy Apricot Mallow. Sphaeralcea ambigua var.
rosacea.
b. Shrubs:
i. White Bursage. Ambrosia dumosa.
ii. Shadscale. Atriplex canescens.
iii. Brittlebush. Encelia farinosa.
iv. Flattop Buckwheat. Eriogonum fasciculatum v.
poliofolium.
v. Desert Lavender. Hyptis emoryii.
vi. Chuparosa. Justicia californica.
vii. Creosote Bush. Larrea tridentata.
viii.Paperflower. Psilotrophe cooperi.
ix. Jojoba. Simmondsia chinensis.
14 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
576
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 15

2.3.9. Turf grass. Any and all species of turf grass are prohibited.

2.3.10. Synthetic turf. The total area of synthetic turf within the boundaries of a building pad shall not exceed 500 square feet. Use of synthetic turf at any location outside of the area of an approved building pad is prohibited.

2.3.11. Irrigation. Irrigation shall utilize subterranean piping and systems (e.g. drip irrigation) that conveys water to individual plants. Spray irrigation is prohibited.

2.3.12. Landscape, glare reduction. Use of landscape glass, including recycled glass aggregates, fire glass, and crushed mirror glass, is prohibited for exterior use.

Landscape glass, as shown above, is
prohibited. See Standard 2.3.28.
◄
Synthetic turf. ◄

2.4 STRUCTURE, BUILDING, & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

2.4.1. Building setbacks and yards. Every portion and component of a structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from a property boundary line. No portion or component of a
structure shall project into this setback.
50 ft min
Property
Line
The structure is set back a minimum
of 50 feet from the property line. See
Standard 2.4.1.
◄

2.4.2. Main and accessory structures, maximum area. The total area of a dwelling unit and associated above-grade accessory structures, including carports and garages on any one lot, shall not exceed 35 percent of the building pad area or 3,200 square feet, whichever is less.

2.4.3. Main and accessory structures, maximum stories. A building and accessory structure shall not exceed one story in height. 577
Sloped roof Flat roof
21 ft max
15 ft max
Buildings with sloped roofs shall
have a height maximum of 21 feet.

Buildings with flat roofs shall have
a height maximum of 15 feet. See
Standard 2.4.4.
◄

2.4.5. Roofs, allowed types. Utilize at least one of the following roof types. All other roof types, dormers, domes, and other roof forms are prohibited.
a. Barrel and curved.
b. Butterfly.
c. Clerestory.
d. Flat.
e. Gable, open and boxed, and cross gabled;
dormers prohibited.
f. Hipped, cross hipped, hip and valley; pyramid hipped, dormers prohibited.
g. Jerkinhead.
h. M-Shaped; must include minimum 12 foot offsets at
gable ends.
i. Monitor roofs utilizing the same types and slope as
roofs below and no more than 40 percent of the length
of the abutting ridge line below.
j. Sawtooth.
k. Shed, lean-to.
l. Skillion.

2.4.6. Skylights. The maximum glazed plan area of skylights and glass covered areas at all structures on a lot shall not exceed 150 square feet.

2.4.7. Roof slopes. No roof slope shall exceed a pitch of one unit vertical to three units horizontal (1:3).

2.4.4. Main and accessory structures, maximum height. Buildings and portions of buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from the adjoining grade.

Buildings and portions of buildings with sloped roofs
shall not exceed 21 feet in height as measured from the adjoining grade.
16 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
578
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 17

2.4.8. Rooftop equipment. Rooftop-mounted equipment shall comply with all of the following standards.
a. Rooftop equipment that exceeds 48 inches in height is prohibited.
b. Unscreened rooftop-mounted equipment is prohibited.
c. Rooftop-mounted equipment that is 48 inches or
less in height shall be screened from view either by
pitched roofs or wall or screening elements that are no greater than 48 inches in height and with maximum 50
percent transparency.
d. Notwithstanding the height limits of this policy, a wall or screening that hides rooftop-mounted equipment shall
not exceed 19 feet in height above grade. The total area of roof-top mounted equipment and associated walls
or screen walls shall not also exceed 25 percent of the total roof area.

2.4.9. Parking space building separation. Surface parking spaces shall be separated from buildings by a minimum five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk and a minimum three-foot wide
landscape strip, as measured from the curb face.

2.4.10. Solar panels. Solar panels shall be non-reflective and placed back from the edge of the roof or parapet a minimum of
24 inches.

Roof slope < 1:3 pitch
Satellite equipment or
mechanical equipment
Sloped roofs are set at a maximum
1:3 slope. All rooftop and mechanical
equipment are screened from view. See
Standards 2.4.7. and 2.4.11.
◄
579

2.4.11. Satellite equipment. One visible satellite dish per lot, a maximum of 36 inches in diameter and attached to a
structure, may be utilized.

2.4.12. Roof decks. Roof decks at primary structures shall not exceed 500 square feet in size.

2.4.13. Building wall, maximum length. A straight and continuous building wall shall not exceed 30 feet in length without a horizontal offset in plan that establishes, top to bottom of the wall, a minimum three-foot offset. Notwithstanding this requirement, a curved wall with a radius not less than 12 feet nor greater than 80 feet may maintain a continuous length with no plan offsets.
3 ft offset 30 ft max
30 ft max
Building walls shall not exceed 30 ft
and offset with a minimum of 3 ft. See
Standard 2.4.13.
◄
breaks in wall plane
covered outdoor
patio
shading
component
window
opening
covered
outdoor arcade
Examples of shading features. See
Standard 2.4.14.
◄

2.4.14. Building wall, shading. Every structure greater than 500 square feet in size shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following elements to establish exterior wall surface shadows. With the exception of wing walls, shadowing at exterior wall surfaces shall at a minimum also shade 45 percent of east-facing building walls at 9:00 AM on the summer solstice.
shading
component
18 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
580
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 19 a. Open-to-the-air roof overhangs including eaves and
rakes a minimum of two feet in depth and located on
at least two sides of the footprint of the building or 60 percent of the perimeter of the structure, whichever is greater.
b. Vertical and horizontal breaks in wall plane with
minimum three-foot offsets.
c. Covered outdoor patios, terraces, arcades and courtyards that are in total plan area a minimum of 10 percent of
the area of the footprint of the main structure. Covered outdoor spaces shall be open on at least one side to
views of the surrounds. Covering of these outdoor
spaces shall be a minimum of 30 percent open to the
sky.
d. Openings, including windows and doors recessed a
minimum of one foot from the adjoining exterior wall
surface. A minimum of 30 percent of the openings,
inclusive of doors and windows, shall met this
requirement.
e. Openings recessed a minimum of three inches from the adjoining wall surface. A minimum of 70 percent of the
openings, inclusive of doors and windows shall met this requirement.
f. Permanently affixed vertical shading components
inclusive of open-to-the-air brise-soleil, louvers, fins, and screen walls that each incorporate a transparency or open-to-the-air area of a minimum of 40 percent.
g. Permanently affixed awnings and exterior shades
at a minimum of 75 percent of all window and
door openings.

2.4.15. Grade-level decks, platforms, and steps. Open-to-the-sky decks and platforms that extend more than six feet beyond the exterior wall of a structure shall not exceed six feet in height as measured from the adjoining grade.

2.4.16. Openings, window and door divides. All windows and doors with divided glazing shall utilize muntins, mullions and sticking that establish true divides (authentic divided lites).

The following type of muntins, mullions, and sticking are prohibited: grills-between-the-glass (GBGs), simulated
divided lites (SDL), and simulated divided lites with space bars (SDLS).
581

2.5 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

2.5.1. Lighting, exterior. All outdoor lighting, with the exception of string and bistro lights that meet the requirements of this Section, shall be fully shielded, directed downward, and the light source shall not be visible.

2.5.2. Lighting, fixture intensity. Each outdoor light fixture shall not exceed 850 lumens.

2.5.3. Lighting, location and brightness. Exterior lighting shall be located within 60 feet of a structure or swimming pool, except that access drives, parking areas, walkways, and areas lit by bistro and string lights may include security lighting that meets the requirements of this Section. Unless otherwise noted in this Section, the average maintained horizontal footcandles at grade shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles except within 15 feet of building walls and entrances to buildings where the average maintained footcandles
at grade shall not exceed five footcandles. The average maintained horizontal footcandles at grade at property lines shall be zero footcandles.

2.5.4. Lighting, height. No lighting nor lighting fixture shall be located more than 15 feet above grade.

2.5.5. Lighting, timing. Any exterior light located outside of the perimeter of a building pad shall be controlled by a motion sensor which extinguishes the light no later than ten
minutes after activation. Photocells or photocontrols shall be used to extinguish all outdoor lighting from dawn to dusk.

2.5.7. Lighting, exterior color. The color temperature of all outdoor lighting shall be 3,000 Kelvin or less, except for seasonal lighting.

2.5.8. Lighting, seasonal. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, seasonal lighting confined to the area of a building pad is permitted from November 15th through January 15th.

A minimally lighted pathway. See
Section 2.5: Exterior Lighting.
◄
20 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
582
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 21

2.6 COLORS AND MATERIALS
The following earth-toned and desert-hued colors represent a range of compliant colors that are annotated with a HEX color code. Applicants shall use these HEX color code numbers to identify compliant colors from their chosen manufacturer of a color or material that most similarly matches the colors provided in this Section. All colors and materials selected by an applicant will be reviewed and approved for match with the compliant colors and materials of this section by the Director of Development Services or their designee.

2.6.1. Primary wall color, painted or integral color. When stucco or siding or an integrally colored material allowed by this Section is used as the primary wall finish, select one color from the palette below for the exterior walls of all buildings and structures on the lot.

2.6.2. Gutters, railings, and fixed exterior fixtures. Gutters, railings, and other visible fixed fixtures, building components, and equipment such as exterior lights, louvers, flashing, and fixed exterior shade devices shall either match the primary wall color or one of the colors from the palette below.
#D8D3C5 #E3D4C5 #CEC2AE #CCA683 #DBD0BB
#E4C495 #C09972 #AC9571 #F5DEBB #BB8D6B
#CBC0AD #DACAB2 #D8CEB9 #B0785C #BD9C77
#EDD6B1 #E0CFB0 #F3E6CE #D7C5AE #EADFC9
#DBD0BB #BAA185 #CBA97E #DCC6A6 #DCCFBA
#EABF86 #EFDDC1 #F0EADC #D2B18F
#573E3E #5F5B4D #44484D #7F7E72 #8D8168
#665D57 #826F5E #785B47 #4F3426 #66543E
#5D513E

OIL RUB BRONZE

ADJOINING

PRIMARY COLOR
WALL
583

2.6.3. Openings, doors and windows. Doors and windows and other building components that are fixed within an opening or attached over an opening shall either match the primary wall color or one of the colors from the palette below.

2.6.4. Finish, paint. When utilizing paint at the exterior, utilize one of the finishes from the options below.
a. Flat.
b. Eggshell.
c. Satin / Velvet.
d. Semi-gloss.

2.6.5. Roof materials and colors for roof slopes 2:12 and greater.

The following roof materials are allowed on roofs with a slope of 2:12 and greater. The roof color shall match one of the compliant colors noted in Standard 2.6.1.
a. Clay tiles.
b. Composite shingles and tiles that simulate shake, slate, concrete, and clay.
c. Concrete tiles.
d. Metal roofing that matches one of the compliant colors noted in Standard 2.6.1.
e. Slate and stone.
#627F7B #994B35 #C4D1C9 #855A57 #A56C58
#AC7568 #622D2D #5D3831 #5D6F7F #666D69
#44484D #827C5A #2F2F30 #85594F #47626A
#403330 #5E5949 #B5745C #F4F1EB

OIL RUB BRONZE

CLEAR ANODIZED

ADJOINING

PRIMARY COLOR
WALL
22 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
584
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 23

2.6.6. Roof materials and colors for roof slopes less than 2:12.

The following roof materials are allowed on roofs with a slope less than 2:12. The roofing color shall match one of the compliant colors noted in Standard 2.6.1 or be covered in gravel.
a. Built-up roofing (BUR).
b. Thermoplastic olefin roofing (TPO).
c. Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer roofing (EPDM).
d. Modified Bitumen roofing.

2.6.7. Roofs, solar values. For roofs with slopes less than 2:12, the roofing material shall have an aged reflectance value of 0.63 and greater, and a thermal emittance of at least 0.75 and greater or a solar reflectance index (SRI) of at least 75 and greater. For roofs with slopes 2:12 and greater, the roofing material shall have an aged solar reflectance value of 0.20 or greater, and a thermal emittance value of at least 0.75 and greater, or a SRI of at least 16.

2.6.8. Building wall materials, primary. Utilize one of the materials noted below as the primary wall material on a minimum of 70 percent of the total exterior wall area.
a. Adobe finished and colored per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
b. Cementitious panels and cement board (no vertical or horizontal lap board as a primary material) finished and colored per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
c. Concrete or concrete panels, finished flat or textured, and colored per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
d. Concrete breeze block, burnished, combed, fluted,
ground-face, precision, projection and shadow, scored or ribbed, shotblast, slump, split, and textured units with integral color or painted per the color requirements
of Standard 2.6.1. may be used as a primary material.

Glazed block and brick may be used as an accent
material not to exceed 30 percent of the total
façade area.
e. Desert Masonry with mortar and grout colored per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
f. Natural stone and stone veneer, non-polished, and per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
g. Stucco; all finishes allowed, integrally colored or painted per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
h. Wood siding; naturally clear finished western red ceder or redwood.

Stucco, manufactured rock, split
face and board-form concrete are
examples of building wall materials.

See Standard 2.6.8.
◄
585

2.6.10. Wall materials, free-standing and retaining. Utilize any materials noted in Standard 2.6.8.

2.6.11. Fence and guard rail materials. Fences and guard rails shall utilize one materials.
a. Aluminum, finished per the requirements Standard 2.6.2 or Standard 2.6.3.
b. Metal, finished per the requirements Standard 2.6.2 or Standard 2.6.3.
c. Wood, naturally finished. No colored stains.
24 Chapter 2: HPR Design Standards
586
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 25 3 HILLSIDE PLANNED

RESIDENTIAL

COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 587 26 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist
Hillside Planned Residential Compliance Checklist

CITY OF PALM DESERT
The Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Design Standards assist project applicants and designers to achieve hillside design objectives. As a project is designed, applicants and designers must utilize the design standards outlined in Chapter 2 of the City of Palm Desert Hillside Planned Residential Design Standards, as well as this Compliance Checklist, to determine compliance in advance of submittal and formal review for compliance by the City.

Applicants must fill out the sections of the following pages and check “compliance” or “not applicable (N/A)” as appropriate. In cases where an explanation is required, describe how the multifamily project complies with the design standard or how the design standard is not applicable to the project. If the applicant requires additional space for any explanation and/or chooses to illustrate compliance to a design standard, attachments may be submitted along with this form. Once the form is completed, it must be submitted to the City along with the application submittal package. The City will fill out the sections designated “City use only” in their review upon the applicant’s submission of this checklist and other application materials.

PROJECT INFORMATION

CONTACT INFORMATION
Applicant Name:

Please check one. Property Owner
Design Firm/Architect
Representative
Other (please specify):

Engineer
Email:

Phone:

Proposed Project Name:

Date:

CITY USE ONLY

OVERALL COMPLIANCE FINDING
City Comments (Optional): Reviewed by:

YES: NO:

Date:
588
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 27

CITY USE ONLY

2.1. HILLSIDE GRADING &

RIDGELINE PROTECTION

2.1. HILLSIDE GRADING &

RIDGELINE PROTECTION
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

The Director may approve grading up to two additional
cubic yards per four square feet of lot area per lot.

2.1.2. Grading abutting public land and conservation easements.

No earth shall be graded within 50 feet of the boundaries of any abutting public land as established by a survey, or conservation, or drainage easement, either abutting, adjoining, or within a project site as noted in a title report.

2.1.3. Graded slope appearance. Graded slopes shall utilize landform grading and be planted with plant materials as noted in Section 2.3.

If “Not Applicable” was selected in the above section, provide an explanation for why the standard does not apply to the proposed project (required).

This comment box may also be used for further explanations of compliance (optional).

City comments (optional).

CITY USE ONLY

2.2. SITE & OPEN SPACE 2.2. SITE & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.2.1. Density. Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. All lots will be entitled to at least one unit.

2.2.2. Structures at Major Ridgelines. Structures built on or across a Major Ridgeline, as noted in Figure 1: Ridgeline Map, is prohibited.

2.2.3. Horizontal setbacks at Major Ridgelines. Structures shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from a major ridgeline.

2.2.4. Vertical setbacks at Major Ridgelines. The grade adjacent to portions of a structure within 100 feet of a Major
Ridgeline shall be set a minimum of 30 feet below
the Ridgeline.

2.2. SITE AND OPEN SPACE CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
589
28 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist

CITY USE ONLY

2.2. SITE & OPEN SPACE (CONT.) 2.2. SITE & OPEN SPACE (CONT.) DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.2.5. Building pad, location at Major Ridgelines. New building pads shall be set a minimum of 50 feet from a Major
Ridgeline and be graded such that every portion of the
building pad is a minimum of 30 feet below the Ridgeline.

2.2.6. Structures at slopes greater than 20 percent. On slopes greater than 5:1 (20 percent), structures are prohibited.

2.2.7. Building pad area at new building pads. The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading for a new building pad shall not exceed 7,500 square feet.

2.2.8. Building pad area at existing building pads. An existing building pad that is less than 7,500 square feet may
be added to such that the maximum area permanently
disturbed by grading shall not exceed 7,500 square feet.

2.2.9. Siting of buildings and structures at tops and toes of slopes. Structures set on a building pad shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the top edge of the building
slope. Structures in relationship to the toe of an adjoining slope greater than 5:1 (20 percent) shall be set back
a minimum of half the height of the slope or 20 feet,
whichever is less.

2.2.10. Utilities. Any and all poles, overhead wires and lines, cables, transformers, and switchgear associated with the provision of on-site electrical service shall be placed underground. Any pipes associated with provision
of electrical, water, or gas service shall be placed
underground, or if attached to the structure shall be
the same color as the structure. Electrical transformers and switch gear may be mounted on ground pads if fully
screened from view by walls, maximum 50 percent open
and colored per the color allowances in Section 2.6.

2.2.11. Fences and walls, location. Fences and walls shall only be located on building pads. Notwithstanding this
requirement, retaining walls and other City requirements are permitted at any location on a lot.

2.2.12. Fence and wall height. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height as measured from the adjacent grade.

2.2.13. Retaining walls. A maximum of two freestanding vertical walls, or two walls sloped inward at an angle of 60
degrees or more from the base of the wall, may be built on any lot. No wall shall exceed a maximum of 150 feet
in length without a minimum five-foot horizontal offset in plane or the initialization of a curved wall segment with a radius that is drawn perpendicular to the wall
with a minimum length of 600 feet. If the maximum two
freestanding walls are designed so that one is vertically above the other, the minimum horizontal distance
between the two walls shall be six feet.

2.2. SITE AND OPEN SPACE CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
590
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 29

CITY USE ONLY

2.2. SITE & OPEN SPACE (CONT.) 2.2. SITE & OPEN SPACE (CONT.) DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.2.14. Swimming pools and equipment. Private swimming pools and associated equipment shall be located within the
boundaries of the approved building pad. All swimming
pool equipment shall be housed in a building or be
located behind a fence or wall a minimum of four feet in height that meets the fence and wall standards in this
Section.

2.2.16. Common open space conservation. All common open space shall be conserved and maintained for that purpose as shown on the approved plans. The applicant of a
project shall choose one or a combination of the following methods of administering common open space:
a. Dedication of common open space to the City,
which is subject to formal acceptance.
b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit
corporation or other entity within a project
boundary to ensure the perpetual maintenance
of all common open space.
c. Retention of ownership, control, and
maintenance of all common open space by the
owner of a project; all privately owned common
open space shall continue as such and shall
only be used in accordance with the approved
plan; any approved land use restrictions shall
be contained in all deeds to ensure that the
common open space is permanently conserved
according to the approved plan; said deed
restrictions shall run with the land and be for
the benefit of present as well as future owners,
and shall contain a prohibition against partition
of common open space.

If “Not Applicable” was selected in the above section, provide an explanation for why the standard does not apply to the proposed project (required).

This comment box may also be used for further explanations of compliance (optional).

City comments (optional).
591
30 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist

CITY USE ONLY

2.3. TREES & PLANTS 2.3. TREES & PLANTS
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.3.1. Trees, density. A maximum of one tree may be planted for each 3,000 square feet of building pad area.

2.3.2. Trees, location. Planting of trees within 150 feet of a Major Ridgeline is prohibited. Trees greater than 150 feet from a Major Ridgeline must be planted a minimum of
30 feet below the elevation of the closest major hillside ridge. Trees within 50 feet of a minor hillside ridge must be planted within an approved building pad or at an
elevation a minimum of 30 feet below the elevation of
the closest minor hillside ridge. See Section 2.1 for a Ridgeline Map.

2.3.3. Trees, spacing. Where more than two trees are planted, trees shall be spaced such that a straight line can not be drawn through more than two trees. Notwithstanding the
tree density and spacing requirements noted, if a structure is located west of Highway 74 and within 600 feet of the Highway 74 right-of-way, and the average elevation of the building pad or grade adjoining the building is within 50 feet in elevation of that portion of Highway 74 closest to the building pad or grade adjoining the building, allowed tree species shall be continuously planted in front of
and within 30 feet of any east and south facing building walls, with trees not to exceed 30 feet on center along the length of these building walls.

2.3.4. Trees, allowed species within building pads. Where trees are planted within building pads, utilize species from the following list. All other tree species are prohibited.
a. Blue Palo Verde. Cercidium floridum.
b. Desert Willow. Chilopsis linearis.
c. Honey Mesquite. Prosopis glandulosa. May
be a thornless cultivar inclusive of Prosopis
glandulosa ‘Maverick’ or Prosopis glandulosa
‘AZT.’
d. Velvet Mesquite. Prosopis velutina (aka
Neltuma velutina).
e. Ironwood. Olneya tesota.

2.3.5. Trees, allowed species outside of building pads. Where trees are planted outside of building pads, utilize
species from the following list. All other tree species are prohibited.
a. Honey Mesquite. Prosopis glandulosa. May
be a thornless cultivar inclusive of Prosopis
glandulosa ‘Maverick’ or Prosopis glandulosa
‘AZT.’
b. Ironwood. Olneya tesota.

2.3.6. Shrubs and perennials, density. A maximum of one shrub or perennial may be planted for each 500 square feet of lot area. Where more than two shrubs or perennials are
planted, they shall be spaced such that a straight line can not be drawn through more than two plants.

2.3. TREES & PLANTS CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
592
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 31

CITY USE ONLY

2.3. TREES & PLANTS (CONT.) 2.3. TREES & PLANTS (CONT.) DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.3.7. Shrubs and perennials, location. Shrub and perennials shall only be planted within the approved building pad
area and any area subject to landform grading.

2.3.8. Shrubs and perennials, species. Where shrubs and perennials are planted, utilize species from the following list. All other shrub and perennial species are prohibited.

Perennials:
a. Desert Sand Verbena. Abronia villosa.
b. Wild Marigold. Baileya multiradiata.
c. Interior California Buckwheat. Eriogonum
fasciculatum v. poliofolium.
d. Whitestem Paperflower. Psilotrophe cooperi.
e. Desert Globemallow. Sphaeralcea ambigua.
f. Rosy Apricot Mallow. Sphaeralcea ambigua var.
rosacea.

Shrubs:
g. White Bursage. Ambrosia dumosa.
h. Shadscale. Atriplex canescens.
i. Brittlebush. Encelia farinosa.
j. Flattop Buckwheat. Eriogonum fasciculatum v.
poliofolium.
k. Desert Lavender. Hyptis emoryii.
l. Chuparosa. Justicia californica.
m. Creosote Bush. Larrea tridentata.
n. Paperflower. Psilotrophe cooperi.
o. Jojoba. Simmondsia chinensis.

2.3.9. Turf grass. Any and all species of turf grass are prohibited.

2.3.11. Irrigation. Irrigation shall utilize subterranean piping and systems (e.g. drip irrigation) that conveys water to individual plants. Spray irrigation is prohibited.

2.3.12. Landscape, glare reduction. Use of landscape glass, including recycled glass aggregates, fire glass, and
crushed mirror glass, is prohibited for exterior use.

If “Not Applicable” was selected in the above section, provide an explanation for why the standard does not apply to the proposed project (required).

This comment box may also be used for further explanations of compliance (optional).

City comments (optional).
593
32 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist

CITY USE ONLY

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.4.2. Main and accessory structures, maximum area. The total area of a dwelling unit and associated above-grade
accessory structures, including carports and garages on any one lot, shall not exceed 35 percent of the building pad area or 3,200 square feet, whichever is less.

2.4.3. Main and accessory structures, maximum stories. A building and accessory structure shall not exceed one
story in height.

2.4.4. Main and accessory structures, maximum height. Buildings and portions of buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from the adjoining grade.

Buildings and portions of buildings with sloped roofs
shall not exceed 21 feet in height as measured from the adjoining grade.

2.4.5. Roofs, allowed types. Utilize at least one of the following roof types. All other roof types, dormers, domes, and other roof forms are prohibited.
a. Barrel and curved.
b. Butterfly.
c. Clerestory.
d. Flat.
e. Gable, open and boxed, and cross gabled;
dormers prohibited.
f. Hipped, cross hipped, hip and valley; pyramid
hipped, dormers prohibited.
g. Jerkinhead.
h. M-Shaped; must include minimum 12 foot
offsets at gable ends.
i. Monitor roofs utilizing the same types and slope
as roofs below and no more than 40 percent of
the length of the abutting ridge line below.
j. Sawtooth.
k. Shed, lean-to.
l. Skillion.

2.4.6. Skylights. The maximum glazed plan area of skylights and glass covered areas at all structures on a lot shall not exceed 150 square feet.

2.4.7. Roof slopes. No roof slope shall exceed a pitch of one unit vertical to three units horizontal (1:3).

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE 594
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 33

CITY USE ONLY

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (CONT.)

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.4.8. Rooftop equipment. Rooftop-mounted equipment shall comply with all of the following standards.
a. Rooftop equipment that exceeds 48 inches in
height is prohibited.
b. Unscreened rooftop-mounted equipment is
prohibited.
c. Rooftop-mounted equipment that is 48 inches or
less in height shall be screened from view either
by pitched roofs or wall or screening elements
that are no greater than 48 inches in height and
with maximum 50 percent transparency.
d. Notwithstanding the height limits of this policy,
a wall or screening that hides rooftop-mounted
equipment shall not exceed 19 feet in height
above grade. The total area of roof-top mounted
equipment and associated walls or screen walls
shall not also exceed 25 percent of the total
roof area.

2.4.10. Solar panels. Solar panels shall be non-reflective and placed back from the edge of the roof or parapet a
minimum of 24”.

2.4.11. Satellite equipment. One visible satellite dish per lot, a maximum of 36” in diameter and attached to a structure, may be utilized.

2.4.12. Roof decks. Roof decks at primary structures shall not exceed 500 sf. in size.

2.4.13. Building wall, maximum length. A straight and continuous building wall shall not exceed 30’ in length without a
horizontal offset in plan that establishes, top to bottom of the wall, a minimum 3’ offset.

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE 595
34 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist

CITY USE ONLY

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (CONT.)

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

Covering of these outdoor spaces shall be a
minimum of 30% open to the sky.
d. Openings, including windows and doors recessed
a minimum of one foot from the adjoining
exterior wall surface. A minimum of 30% of the
openings, inclusive of doors and windows, shall
met this requirement.
e. Openings recessed a minimum of three inches
from the adjoining wall surface. A minimum of
70% of the openings, inclusive of doors and
windows shall met this requirement.
f. Permanently affixed vertical shading
components inclusive of open-to-the-air brisesoleil, louvers, fins, and screen walls that each incorporate a transparency or open-to-the-air
area of a minimum of 40%.
g. Permanently affixed awnings and exterior
shades at a minimum of 75% of all window and
door openings.

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE 596
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 35

CITY USE ONLY

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (CONT.)

2.4. STRUCTURE, BUILDING, &
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.4.15. Grade-level decks, platforms, and steps. Open-to-thesky decks and platforms that extend more than six feet beyond the exterior wall of a structure shall not exceed six feet in height as measured from the adjoining grade.

2.4.16. Openings, window and door divides. All windows and doors with divided glazing shall utilize muntins, mullions and sticking that establish true divides (authentic divided lites). The following type of muntins, mullions, and
sticking are prohibited: grills-between-the-glass (GBGs), simulated divided lites (SDL), and simulated divided lites with space bars (SDLS).

If “Not Applicable” was selected in the above section, provide an explanation for why the standard does not apply to the proposed project (required).

This comment box may also be used for further explanations of compliance (optional).

City comments (optional).

CITY USE ONLY

2.5. EXTERIOR LIGHTING 2.5. EXTERIOR LIGHTING
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.5.2. Lighting, fixture intensity. Each outdoor light fixture shall not exceed 850 lumens.

2.5.3. Lighting, location and brightness. Exterior lighting shall be located within 60 feet of a structure or swimming
pool, except that access drives, parking areas, walkways, and areas lit by bistro and string lights may include
security lighting that meets the requirements of this
Section. Unless otherwise noted in this Section, the
average maintained horizontal footcandles at grade
shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles except within 15 feet of building walls and entrances to buildings where
the average maintained footcandles at grade shall
not exceed five footcandles. The average maintained
horizontal footcandles at grade at property lines shall be zero footcandles.

2.5.4. Lighting, height. No lighting nor lighting fixture shall be located more than 15 feet above grade.

2.5. EXTERIOR LIGHTING CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
597
36 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist

CITY USE ONLY

2.5. EXTERIOR
LIGHTING (CONT.)

2.5. EXTERIOR
LIGHTING (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.5.5. Lighting, timing. Any exterior light located outside of the perimeter of a building pad shall be controlled by a motion sensor which extinguishes the light no later than ten minutes after activation. Photocells or photocontrols shall be used to extinguish all outdoor lighting from dawn to dusk.

2.5.6. Lighting, bistro and string lights. String and bistro lights are permitted but shall not exceed 60 feet in length and 250 square feet in area, be dimmable, not exceed an
average of five maintained footcandles at grade, and be attached to the main structure at a height of not more
than 12 feet above grade.

2.5.7. Lighting, exterior color. The color temperature of all outdoor lighting shall be 3,000 Kelvin or less, except for seasonal lighting.

2.5.8. Lighting, seasonal. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, seasonal lighting confined to the area of a building pad is permitted from November 15th through
January 15th.

If “Not Applicable” was selected in the above section, provide an explanation for why the standard does not apply to the proposed project (required).

This comment box may also be used for further explanations of compliance (optional).

City comments (optional).

CITY USE ONLY

2.6. COLORS & MATERIALS 2.6. COLORS & MATERIALS
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.6.1. Primary wall color, painted or integral color. When stucco or siding or an integrally colored material allowed by
this Section is used as the primary wall finish, select one color from the palette below for the exterior walls of all buildings and structures on the lot.

2.6.3. Openings, doors and windows. Doors and windows and other building components that are fixed within an
opening or attached over an opening shall either match
the primary wall color or one of the colors from the
palette below.

2.5. EXTERIOR LIGHTING CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
HEX:

HEX:

HEX:
598
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 37

CITY USE ONLY

2.6. COLORS &
MATERIALS (CONT.)

2.6. COLORS &
MATERIALS (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.6.4. Finish, paint. When utilizing paint at the exterior, utilize one of the finishes from the options below.
a. Flat.
b. Eggshell.
c. Satin / Velvet.
d. Semi-gloss.

2.6.5. Roof materials and colors for roof slopes 2:12 and greater.

The following roof materials are allowed on roofs with a slope of 2:12 and greater. The roof color shall match one of the compliant colors noted in Standard 2.6.1.
a. Clay tiles.
b. Composite shingles and tiles that simulate
shake, slate, concrete, and clay.
c. Concrete tiles.
d. Metal roofing that matches one of the compliant
colors noted in Standard 2.6.1.
e. Slate and stone.

2.6.6. Roof materials and colors for roof slopes less than 2:12.

The following roof materials are allowed on roofs with
a slope less than 2:12. The roofing color shall match one of the compliant colors noted in Standard 2.6.1 or be
covered in gravel.
a. Built-up roofing (BUR).
b. Thermoplastic olefin roofing (TPO).
c. Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
roofing (EPDM).
d. Modified Bitumen roofing.

2.6.7. Roofs, solar values. For roofs with slopes less than 2:12, the roofing material shall have an aged reflectance
value of 0.63 and greater, and a thermal emittance of at least 0.75 and greater or a solar reflectance index (SRI) of at least 75 and greater. For roofs with slopes 2:12
and greater, the roofing material shall have an aged
solar reflectance value of 0.20 or greater, and a thermal emittance value of at least 0.75 and greater, or a SRI of at least 16.

2.6. COLORS & MATERIALS CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
599
38 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist

CITY USE ONLY

2.6. COLORS &
MATERIALS (CONT.)

2.6. COLORS &
MATERIALS (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.6.8. Building wall materials, primary. Utilize one of the materials noted below as the primary wall material on a minimum of 70% of the total exterior wall area.
a. Adobe finished and colored per the color
requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
b. Cementitious panels and cement board (no
vertical or horizontal lap board as a primary
material) finished and colored per the color
requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
c. Concrete or concrete panels, finished flat or
textured, and colored per the color requirements
of Standard 2.6.1.
d. Concrete breeze block, burnished, combed, fluted,
ground-face, precision, projection and shadow,
scored or ribbed, shotblast, slump, split, and
textured units with integral color or painted per
the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1. may
be used as a primary material. Glazed block and
brick may be used as an accent material not to
exceed 30 percent of the total façade area.
e. Desert Masonry with mortar and grout colored
per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
f. Natural stone and stone veneer, non-polished,
and per the color requirements of Standard 2.6.1.
g. Stucco; all finishes allowed, integrally colored
or painted per the color requirements of
Standard 2.6.1.
h. Wood siding; naturally clear finished western red
ceder or redwood.

2.6.10. Wall materials, free-standing and retaining. Utilize any materials noted in Standard 2.6.8.

2.6. COLORS & MATERIALS CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
600
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 39

CITY USE ONLY

2.6. COLORS &
MATERIALS (CONT.)

2.6. COLORS &
MATERIALS (CONT.)
DESIGN
STANDARD DESCRIPTION NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NOT APPLICABLE COMPLIANT NONCOMPLIANT

2.6.11. Fence and guard rail materials. Fences and guard rails shall utilize one materials.
a. Aluminum, finished per the requirements of
Standard 2.6.2 or Standard 2.6.3.
b. Metal, finished per the requirements of Standard

2.6.2 or Standard 2.6.3.
c. Wood, naturally finished. No colored stains.

If “Not Applicable” was selected in the above section, provide an explanation for why the standard does not apply to the proposed project (required).

This comment box may also be used for further explanations of compliance (optional).

City comments (optional).

CITY USE ONLY

FINAL APPLICANT COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) FINAL CITY COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) 601
40 Chapter 3: Compliance Checklist
This page is intentionally blank.
602
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 41 41 4 GLOSSARY
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 603 42 Chapter 9: Glossary
A
Accessory Building or Structure. Any subordinate
building or structure located on the building
site, detached from or attached to the principle
structure, the use and architectural style of which
is equivalent to that of a main building.

B
Building. A structure having a roof supported by
columns or walls.

Building Area. The square footage of the total
covered footprint of the building, including all
floors of the building.

C
Canopy Tree. An evergreen or semi-deciduous
tree planted for the purposes of providing shade,
reducing glare, and heat build up. These trees
shall have a minimum 30-foot diameter canopy
potential.

Common Open Space. The open-to-the-sky area
of a lot other than the building pad, and roads,
drives, pathways, and easements that provide
access or service to the building pad and any
structures within the area of the building pad.

D
Dark-Sky Compliant. Outdoor lighting that is
designed to prevent light pollution by directing
light towards the ground.

Desert Masonry. A concrete and stone mixture
that utilizes rocks and rubble materials from the
surrounding and local area and sets them within
poured in place concrete forms.

Design Standards. A toolbox of a broad range of
measurable and quantifiable or “yes or no” design
approaches that assists project proponents and
their design teams in reaching compliance with
the desired character and identity of the City of
Palm Desert.

F
Fence. A freestanding structure of brick, stone, face
stone, veneer stone, or any combination thereof
resting on or partially buried in the ground level,
and used for confinement, privacy, protection,
screening, or partition purposes.

Frontage, Building. The building elevation that
fronts on a public street, alley, driveway, parking
area, pedestrian plaza, courtyard, or arcade.

Frontage, Public Street. The property line that
adjoins a public street, alley, driveway, parking
area, pedestrian plaza, courtyard, or arcade.

G
Grade, Average. The average elevation of the
finished ground surface surrounding a building.

H
Height. Refer to Grade, Ground Elevation.

L
Landform Grading. Geomorphic grading or
landforming that utilizes curvilinear forms and
convex and concave slopes to mimic and blend
with the adjoining undisturbed slopes. Landform
grading utilizes plantings and distribution of plant
materials that are either native to the Palm Desert
Hills or selected from an approved plant materials
list as noted in this section of the Zoning Code or
as approved and available from the city.
604
CITY OF PALM DESERT HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 43 M
Mass/Massing. The comprehensive bulk or threedimensional form of a building or portion of a building as viewed from the exterior.

Main Structure. The primary structure on a single
family dwelling lot.

P
Project Visibility, Hillside. A hillside project in the Hillside Planned Residential district is visible if
the lot and buildings on the lot are visible from
Highway 74.

R
Retaining Wall. A freestanding and continuous
wall greater than three feet in height in
relationship to the adjoining grade that as viewed
from the top is open to the sky and intended to
support sloped, cut, or fill earth.

Ridgeline, Major. A major ridgeline as noted in the
Ridgeline Map in Section 2.1 of these Standards.

Ridgeline, Minor. A major ridgeline as noted in the
Ridgeline Map in Section 2.1 of these Standards.

Roof, Flat. The angle of the roof is sloped less than
15 degrees.

S
Slope, Roof. The incline of a roof, expressed as a
ratio of the roof’s vertical rise to the horizontal
run.

W
Wall. A continuous, upright, and planar structure
that encloses, protects, and/or divides a site.

Wall, Building. The vertical face of a building or
the vertical outer envelope of the structure.
605
City of Palm Desert CA, Draft December 2023

HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL

DESIGN STANDARDS
606
§ 25.10.050 Development Standards.

The development standards on Table 25.10-3 (Residential Zoning District Development Standards) are applicable to the residential zoning districts. These standards, along with other development standards (e.g., landscaping requirements, signs, and parking standards) in this title, are intended to assist property owners and project designers in understanding the City's minimum requirements and expectations for high-quality development.

A. Hillside planned residential development standards. The following standards must be met prior to the approval of a hillside development plan as described in Section 25.78.020:

1. Density. Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of 1 unit per 5 acres. All lots will be entitled to at least 1 unit.

2. Hillside Objective Design Standards. Hillside development plans shall be consistent with the standards and process identified in the City’s adopted Hillside Residential Design Standards document.

Grading. Location of building pads and access roads shall be evaluated, approved, or adjusted based on consistency with the following:
a. Preserved natural contours of the land to avoid extensive cut and fill slopes to reduce the need for a staircase effect within developments.
b. Architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent.
c. Retention and protection of undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks, and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements. d. Building Pad Area. The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
e. Access Road or Driveway. Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet. Roads shall be located and designed to blend with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent consistent with the grading provisions listed in this subsection (A)(2). f. Renaturalization. All cuts, fills, or other areas temporarily disturbed by grading shall be renaturalized, colored, and landscaped to blend with the adjacent undisturbed natural terrain to the satisfaction of the city council.
g. Maximum Dwelling Unit Size. Total dwelling unit, garage and accessory building size on any 1 lot shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.
607

3. Exception. The standards of subsections (A)(1) through (A)(3) of this section shall be required unless modified by one of the following:
a. Precise Plan. Upon recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission, The Planning Commission and Council may approve a precise plan of design through public hearing process that modifies up to a maximum of three (3) standards from the Hillside Residential Design Standards. the standards in subsections (A)(1) through (A)(3). Said precise plan shall take into consideration any and all circumstances, including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the Commission or Council may determine to be in conformity with the purposes set forth in this section. b. Previously Approved Existing Building Pads. If a property owner can demonstrate that a previous building pad was approved by the City or County before incorporation, a home and accessory structure(s) may be built on a previously approved building pad without a public hearing. The building size shall be limited to 35 percent of the lot, which may be increased up to 50 percent with ARC approval. Enlarging a previously approved existing building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter.

4. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35 percent, which may be increased up to 50 percent with ARC approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter.

5. Development on or across ridges is prohibited.

6. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible.

7. All common open space shall be preserved for that purpose as shown in the development plan. The developer shall choose one or a combination of the following 3 methods of administering common open space:
a. Dedication of common open space to the City, which is subject to formal acceptance. b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corporation of all property owners or corporations within the project area to ensure perpetual maintenance of all common open space.
c. Retention of ownership, control, and maintenance of all common open space by the developer; all privately owned common open space shall continue as such and shall only be used in accordance with the development plan; appropriate land use restrictions shall be contained in all deeds to ensure that the common open space is permanently preserved according to the development plan; said deed restrictions shall run with the land and be for the 608
benefit of present as well as future property owners, and shall contain a prohibition against partition of common open space.

8. Design Criteria. The following design criteria are established:
a. The overall plan shall achieve an integrated land and building relationship. b. Open spaces, pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities, parking facilities, and other pertinent amenities shall be an integral part of the landscape and particular attention shall be given to the retention of natural landscape features of the site. c. The layout of structures and other facilities shall affect a conservation in street and utility improvements.
d. Recreational areas, active and passive, shall be generally dispersed throughout the development and shall be easily accessible from all dwelling units. e. Architectural unity and harmony within the development and with the surrounding properties shall be attained.
§ 25.72.080 Hillside Development Plan, Commission Role.

A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of a hillside development plan is to provide for the review of projects within the hillside planned residential district to ensure that the design of projects is consistent with the hillside conditions on each development site. A Precise Plan may be used as a Hillside Development Plan. Within the hillside planned residential district, no building permit shall be issued for any new building or structure unless a hillside development plan has been approved by the Council according to Section 25.78.020 (Hillside Development Plan).

B. Procedure and required Planning Commission action.

1. Hillside development plan shall be reviewed and processed according to Section 25.78.020 (Hillside Development Plan) and the City’s adopted Hillside Residential Design Standards. Final approval by the Council is required, but the Commission may deny a hillside development plan.

2. If the Hillside Development Plan is consistent with the Hillside Residential Design Standards, the Planning Commission shall be the final and only approval authority, without Architectural Review Commission recommendation required. Decision of the Planning Commission to approve or deny the development plan shall be final unless appealed to the Council. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and approve if the following findings are met:
609
i. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan is consistent with the City’s Hillside Residential Design Standards and all other applicable sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, including Section 25.78.020
ii. That the proposed location of Hillside Development Plan 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. iii. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. iv. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan.

Prior to Commission action, the ARC shall hold a public hearing on such application and consider a recommendation to the Commission.

3. A Hillside Development Plan may propose to modify a maximum of three (3) standards from the Hillside Residential Design Standards. If a modification is proposed, the Hillside Development Plan shall be recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Commission.

If the Architectural review Commission approves, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to recommend the City Council approve or deny the proposed Hillside Development Plan. Recommendation shall be based upon the findings identified in Section 25.72.080(B).

4. Notice. All public hearings for Hillside Development Plans shall require notice of a public hearing not less than 10 days or more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing notices via United States Postal Service to parties whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, and by notification to all homeowners associations within the City south of Highway 111.

The Commission shall hold a public hearing and either:
i. Recommend to the Council that the development plan is approved if it finds the criteria set forth in Section 25.78.020 (Hillside Development Plan) have been satisfied subject to such conditions as it deems necessary.
ii. Deny the application if it finds the criteria are not being satisfied or that such application would be detrimental to the public peace, health, safety, or welfare.

4. Decision of the Commission to deny the development plan shall be final unless appealed to the Council.
610
§ 25.78.020 Hillside Development Plan.

A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of a hillside development plan is to provide for the review of projects within the hillside planned residential district to ensure that the design of projects is consistent with the hillside conditions on each development site. Within the hillside planned residential district, no building permit shall be issued for any new building or structure unless a hillside development plan covering the area has been approved. Hillside Development Plans require City Council approval if they are proposing to modify up to three (3) standards from the Hillside Residential Design Standards.

B. Hillside development plans. In addition to application forms and materials required by the Director, the following additional application information is required within the hillside planned residential district.

C. Procedure for hillside development plan application.

1. Application. The owner, authorized agent, or the purchaser with the consent of the owner may submit an application for development plan approval to the Department.

2. Notice. All public hearings for Hillside Development Plans shall require notice of a public hearing not less than 10 days or more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing notices via United States Postal Service to parties whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, and by notification to all homeowners associations within the City south of Highway 111.

Notice. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zoning District that do not meet the exception's requirement as described in Section 25.10.050 shall require notice of a public hearing not less than 10 days or more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing notices via United States Postal Service to parties whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, and by notification to all homeowners associations within the City south of Highway 111.

3. If a Hillside Development Plan requires City Council approval per the process outlined in the Hillside Residential Design Standards and 25.72.080, The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council to approve the development plan if it finds the criteria set forth in this chapter have been satisfied subject to such conditions as it deems necessary. The Council shall then hold a public hearing and approve if the following findings are met:
611
i. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan is consistent with the City’s Hillside Residential Design Standards and all other applicable sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, including Section 25.78.020
ii. That the proposed location of Hillside Development Plan 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. iii. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. iv. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan.

The Commission may deny the application if it finds the criteria are not being satisfied or that such application would be detrimental to the public peace, health, safety, or welfare. The decision of the Commission to deny the development plan shall be final unless appealed to the Council.

D. Public hearing and appeal. Public hearing and appeal procedure shall be governed by Chapter 25.60 (Procedures).
612
§ 25.10.050 Development Standards.

A. Hillside planned residential development standards. The following standards must be met prior to the approval of a hillside development plan as described in Section 25.78.020:

1. Density. Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of 1 unit per 5 acres. All lots will be entitled to at least 1 unit.

3. Exception. The standards of subsections (A)(1) through (A)(3) of this section shall be required unless modified by one of the following:
a. Precise Plan. Upon recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission, The Planning Commission and Council may approve a precise plan of design through public hearing process that modifies up to a maximum of three (3) standards from the Hillside Residential Design Standards. Said precise plan shall take into consideration any and all circumstances, including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the Commission or Council may determine to be in conformity with the purposes set forth in this section.
b. Previously Approved Existing Building Pads. If a property owner can demonstrate that a previous building pad was approved by the City or County before incorporation, a home and accessory structure(s) may be built on a previously approved building pad without a public hearing. The building size shall be limited to 35 percent of the lot, which may be increased up to 50 percent with ARC approval. Enlarging a previously approved existing building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter.

5. Development on or across ridges is prohibited.
613

6. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible.
§ 25.72.080 Hillside Development Plan, Commission Role.

B. Procedure and required Planning Commission action.

1. Hillside development plan shall be reviewed and processed according to Section 25.78.020 (Hillside Development Plan) and the City’s adopted Hillside Residential Design Standards.

2. If the Hillside Development Plan is consistent with the Hillside Residential Design Standards, the Planning Commission shall be the final and only approval authority, without Architectural Review Commission recommendation required. Decision of the Planning Commission to approve or deny the development plan shall be final unless appealed to the Council. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and approve if the following findings are met:
i. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan is consistent with the City’s Hillside Residential Design Standards and all other applicable sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, including Section 25.78.020
ii. That the proposed location of Hillside Development Plan 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. iii. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. iv. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan.

If the Architectural review Commission approves, the Planning Commission shall hold a public 614
hearing to recommend the City Council approve or deny the proposed Hillside Development Plan. Recommendation shall be based upon the findings identified in Section 25.72.080(B).

A. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of a hillside development plan is to provide for the review of projects within the hillside planned residential district to ensure that the design of projects is consistent with the hillside conditions on each development site. Within the hillside planned residential district, no building permit shall be issued for any new building or structure unless a hillside development plan covering the area has been approved. Hillside Development Plans require City Council approval if they are proposing to modify up to three (3) standards from the Hillside Residential Design Standards.

C. Procedure for hillside development plan application.

1. Application. The owner, authorized agent, or the purchaser with the consent of the owner may submit an application for development plan approval to the Department.

3. If a Hillside Development Plan requires City Council approval per the process outlined in the Hillside Residential Design Standards and 25.72.080, The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council to approve the development plan if it finds the criteria set forth in this chapter have been satisfied subject to such conditions as it 615
deems necessary. The Council shall then hold a public hearing and approve if the following findings are met:
i. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan is consistent with the City’s Hillside Residential Design Standards and all other applicable sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, including Section 25.78.020
ii. That the proposed location of Hillside Development Plan 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. iii. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. iv. That the proposed Hillside Development Plan complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan.

D. Public hearing and appeal. Public hearing and appeal procedure shall be governed by Chapter 25.60 (Procedures).
616

C I T Y O F P A L M
D E S E R T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760-346-0611
[email protected]

CITY OF PALM DESERT

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA25-5001

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER A ZONING

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADOPT HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN

STANDARDS AND FINDING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined the project to be exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section §15061(b)(3).

PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a request to adopt Objective Design Standards for new residential projects in the Hillside Planned Residential District. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment would include amending multiple sections of Title 25 to refer to the adopted Hillside Objective Design Standards. The standards will apply objective design requirements for qualifying residential housing developments within the Hillside Planned Residential zoning district.

Planning Commission Recommendation: At a duly noticed public hearing on December 16, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2909 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to adopt Hillside residential design standards, modify sections of Palm desert Municipal Code Title 25, and finding the action is exempt from CEQA.

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 8, 2026. The City Council meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449, this meeting may be conducted as a hybrid meeting allowing public access via teleconference or in person. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at https://www.palmdesert.gov/connect/city-council.

COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Those wishing to comment on this application may either appear in person at the public hearing or submit written comments, which must be received by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing. Written comments should be sent to the City of Palm Desert at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, Attention: City Clerk, or emailed to:

[email protected].

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 Damian Olivares (760) 346-0611.

PUBLISH: THE DESERT SUN ANTHONY MEJIA, MMC, CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 19 2025 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
617
618
619
620

Page 1 of 8 ends

CITY OF PALM DESERT

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2026
PREPARED BY: Carlos Flores, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CATAVINA

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:

Hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution entitled “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, TO ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 546 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE”
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

Executive Summary
The City Council of Palm Desert (Council) is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of a decision by the Palm Desert Planning Commission to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Precise Plan for a 546 unit, single-family residential project. Below is a timeline summary of events:

Table 1 – Project Timeline
Date Action
March 10, 2025 Precise Plan 25-0003 Application received May 21, 2025 1
st Community Meeting
September 10, 2025 2
nd Community Meeting
October 1, 2025 CEQA comment period begins
October 3, 2025 CEQA letter received from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
October 20, 2025 CEQA letter received from Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
October 20, 2025 CEQA public review period ends
November 3, 2025 Project comment letter received from “SAFER” 621
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 2 of 8 ends

November 4, 2025 Planning Commission holds public hearing for PP25-0003 and continues to November 18, 2025
November 18, 2025 Planning Commission approves PP25-0003 November 24, 2025 Appeal received from SAFER
Background
On November 18, 2025, Blue Fern West, LLC (Applicant), received approval from the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission (“Commission”) for a Precise Plan and Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) to construct 546 single-family residences (SFR) on approximately 81 acres, including onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater facilities, lighting, and open space areas (Project). The Project will include a mix of single- and two-story homes distributed across four planning areas located South of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 620-170-009.

The Project was approved via Planning Commission Resolution No. 2904 at a public hearing.

The Project was originally on the agenda for November 4, 2025, but was continued until November 18, 2025, at which time the Commission adopted Commission Resolutions 2904, 2905, and 2907. Attachment 2 includes the Commission staff report dated November 18, 2025, which provides information on the entire Project. The full agenda packet for November 18, 2025, can be accessed by clicking the following link: Planning Commission - November 18, 2025. The Project approval included:
 Resolution 2904 (Attachment 3): ISMND and Precise Plan 25-0003 (PP25-0003), which 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 ISMND. PP25-0003 establishes the site layout and development for the 546 SFR units, minimum lot sizes, location of single and two-story homes, location of streets, recreation, retention, open space areas, and landscaping layout.  Resolution 2905: Master Infrastructure Map (TTM 39159), which establishes the Project framework by subdividing the site into six lots, including three lettered lots for the spine road and retention basins, and one for the existing cell tower. TTM 39159 was found to be consistent with the MND adopted via Resolution 2904.  Resolution 2907: Phased Subdivision Map (TTM 39160), which creates the residential lots and facilitates future sale or development of the parcels. This establishes the site layout and development for the 546 SFR units, location of streets, recreation, retention, open space areas, and establishes a phased approach. TTM 39160 was found to be consistent with the MND adopted via Resolution 2904.

Appeal
On November 24, 2025, the City of Palm Desert’s Development Services Department received an appeal application and associated fee from Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“Appellant”) appealing the Commission’s decision to adopt Commission Resolution No. 2904 (Attachment 4, dated December 1, 2025). The reasons stated for the appeal are as follows:
622
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 3 of 8 ends

“SAFER [Appellant] is concerned that the IS/MND prepared for this project is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act due to the IS/MND’s failure to adequately assess the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. SAFER requests that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared for the Project rather than an MND because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts to air quality and biological resources”.

No additional evidence or reason has been submitted as of the date of this report. The Appellant has stated that they reserve the right to provide further comments and evidence prior to and at the City Council’s hearing on the appeal.

The Appellant had previously provided comments to the Commission on the Project for the November 4, 2025, Commission meeting (Attachment 6). The Appellant requested an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared due to their concern “that the IS/MND is improper under [CEQA] due to the IS/MND’s failure to adequately assess the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts”. They cited that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) “has raised concerns that the Project may contain contaminants of concern, including pesticides and organochlorine pesticides historically used on the property”. Additionally, they cited a letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) which stated that the ISMND “lacks a complete assessment of biological resources associated with burrowing owls within the Project site and surrounding area”.

Procedures
Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.60.080 establishes procedures for appeals of land use decisions and designates the Council as the appeal authority for decisions made by the Commission. According to PDMC Section 25.60.080 (F), the appeal is “considered a de novo (new) hearing, and acting on the appeal, the Council shall state the basis for its action. The Council, as the appeal authority, may act to confirm, modify, reverse the action of the Commission, the approving authority, in whole or in part, or add or amend such conditions as it deems necessary. The action of the Council is final on the date of the decision and may not be further appealed.” PDMC Section 25.60.080 requires an appeal hearing to be within 40 days of the date of the appeal filing, unless otherwise agreed to by the applicant. The Applicant and Appellant agreed to a January 8, 2026, City Council public hearing for the appeal, 45 days after the appeal was filed.

Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND)
The primary argument for the appeal is based on the findings of the ISMND. An Initial Study (IS) is a preliminary analysis prepared for a project to determine whether an EIR or negative declaration must be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the IS is to determine whether there may be a significant environmental impact. An IS was prepared for the Project evaluating the required 21 factors for potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA guidelines. The following factors were analyzed to have at least one impact that is a “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated”: Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, Transportation, 623
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 4 of 8 ends

Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance.

In Section 4.3 of the ISMND, Air Quality was determined to have less than significant impacts primarily based upon Appendix A of the ISMND “Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results”. This is determined by using the applicable criteria which include:
- Conflict with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan - Result in a considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards - Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations - Result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

In the City of Palm Desert’s role as the lead agency under CEQA, the Planning Commission found that the Project complied with the requirements of the "2024 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act for the City of Palm Desert” Resolution No. 2024-035. An ISMND was prepared and found that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 ISMND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

CEQA Public Comment Period
The City published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 1, 2025, in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The public review period for the MND was from October 1, 2025, through October 20, 2025. During this review period, the City received a comment letter from the DTSC and CDFW. Although the CEQA Guidelines do not require a lead agency to prepare written responses to comments received (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), written responses were provided to both agencies and are found in Section 2.0 of the ISMND (Attachment 3, Exhibit A). In response to the comment letters, the ISMND revised two (2) Biological Resources mitigation measures, added one (1) Biological Resources mitigation measure, and revised language on the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section. An Errata Section 3.0 was added to the ISMND which details these changes. No comments were received and no revisions requested for the Air Quality section of the ISMND. The ISMND was not substantially revised after public notice of its availability from October 1, 2025, through October 20, 2025, and recirculation was not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) In the October 3, 2025, DTSC comment letter, they recommended that the Project’s soil be tested to determine whether it contained arsenic and organochloride pesticides and herbicides.

Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that the Applicant’s soils consultant, Geo Tek, conducted for the Project, there was no indication that compounds containing arsenic or organochlorides had been used at the subject property. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, Geotek took soil samples from the site on December 11, 2025 and had them tested for organochlorides and arsenic, as suggested in the comment letter. The test results show that neither organochlorides nor arsenic pose a threat to workers or future residents of the Project. These findings were sent to DTSC in a letter on December 15, 2025. Based on these findings, the ISMND’s no significant impact conclusion regarding hazardous substances remains valid and supported by substantial evidence.
624
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 5 of 8 ends

In the October 20, 2025 DFW comment letter, they recommended five (5) modified or new mitigation measures related to burrowing owl and nighttime lighting. The approved ISMND was revised to include three (3) of the five (5) mitigation measures that were proposed by DFW. The only exceptions are proposed measure BIO-3, which would require focused surveys for western burrowing owl, and proposed measure BIO-[B], which would require standards for artificial nighttime lighting.

In consultation with the Project biologist, the City determined that such surveys were unnecessary for the following reasons:
- An extensive biological survey was conducted of the entire project site and accessible neighboring properties, and that survey was negative for burrowing owl individuals and burrowing owl sign;
- No suitable burrows or burrow surrogates (i.e., ground squirrel burrows, pipes, debris piles, etc.) of sufficient size and/or depth to support burrowing owl were observed on site; and
- The project site is highly disturbed, dominated by non-native grasses and mustards, with limited native vegetation and no evidence of active or historical burrowing owl use.

Based on these findings, and on CDFW’s own guidance regarding when focused burrowing owl surveys should be conducted (i.e., upon evidence of suitable owl habitat or sign on or within 150 feet of the project site), focused surveys for burrowing owl are not warranted at this time. The ISMND did accept and incorporate the DFW’s recommendation to conduct pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl “to ensure any new colonization or creation of burrowing owl burrows between now and construction will be detected and avoided.” Concerning the proposed measure BIO-[B], a mitigation measure for artificial nighttime lighting is not necessary based on the existing City of Palm Desert Municipal Code and General Plan Policy requirements. The Project would be subject to PDMC Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and PDMC Chapter 24.16 Outdoor Lighting Requirements which limit construction hours and minimize light intrusion onto adjoining properties.

Appeal Findings
PDMC Section 25.60.080 (B) requires that all appeals must specifically state the basis or grounds of the appeal. The Appellant has failed to present substantial evidence to support the claim “that an EIR needed to be prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts to air quality and biological resources”.

1. Air Quality. Potential air quality impacts were analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) and were determined to be less than significant. No comments or evidence regarding air quality impacts were submitted during the public review period for the ISMND. As such, there is no evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the Project would result in significant air quality impacts.

2. Biological Resources. Biological resources impacts were also evaluated in the ISMND and were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. A total of four (4) 625
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 6 of 8 ends

mitigation measures were incorporated into the ISMND, including three (3) measures developed in coordination with and based on input from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). These measures ensure that potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Appeal Determination
An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration contains a complete, objective, and accurate analysis of the Project’s potential environmental impacts and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

The IS/MND concludes that all potential environmental impacts are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the identified mitigation measures. All comments received regarding the Project were reviewed and considered and were determined not to alter the conclusions of the IS/MND.

The appeal filed by SAFER broadly alleges potential impacts to air quality and biological resources without providing specific facts, technical analysis, or substantial evidence. In addition, SAFER’s November 3, 2025 comment letter raised two concerns based on agency correspondence from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and CDFW:
(1) the potential presence of contaminants of concern, including pesticides and organochlorine pesticides; and
(2) potential impacts to burrowing owl, a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

These issues are already adequately addressed in the environmental record, including the IS/MND, responses to comments, the staff report, and the applicant’s response memorandum:
 An air quality analysis was conducted and concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed and found no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), including no evidence of organochlorine pesticides or arsenic on the Project site.
 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires pre-construction surveys and coordination with CDFW if burrowing owl are detected. No evidence of burrowing owl presence was observed, and no additional focused surveys are required.

Legal Review:

This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

Public Notification:

Community Engagement
The Applicant met all of the requirements outlined in PDMC 25.60.160 Community Engagement.

This included conducting two (2) publicly noticed community engagement meetings on May 21, 626
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 7 of 8 ends

2025 and September 10, 2025, with a City staff representative in attendance. The Applicant responded to questions about two-story homes, development timeline, traffic and circulation, and dust control. The meetings had approximately 33 people in attendance.

Public notice was conducted for the November 4, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, as required by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). A Public Hearing notice was published a minimum of 10 days before the hearing date on Friday, October 24, 2025, in The Desert Sun newspaper. Notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date certain of November 18, 2025. During the November 4, 2025 and November 18, 2025, Planning Commission public hearings, public comments were received with concern about the distance to neighbors, traffic, and heights.

Public notice was conducted for the January 8, 2026, City Council meeting. A Public Hearing notice was published on December 26, 2025, and mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact with this action.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft City Council Resolution

2. Planning Commission Staff Report November 18, 2025

3. PC Draft Resolution 2904
a. Exhibit A ISMND Response to Comments and MMRP
b. Exhibit B PP25-0003 Conditions of Approval

4. Appeal Application

5. PP25-0003 Site Layout Plan

6. SAFER PC Comment

7. CEQA Notice of Intent

8. Community Engagement Letter

9. Public Hearing Notice

10. Applicant Response Memorandum dated December 12, 2025

11.Applicant Response Memorandum dated December 15, 2025 627
City of Palm Desert
PP25-0003 Catavina Appeal

Page 8 of 8 ends

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AWARENESS CHECKLIST:
☒ Site-Specific Property Interest – Councilmembers should check if they own or lease real property within 1,000 feet of the project site (Gov. Code § 87103(b); FPPC Reg. 18702.2). ☒ SB 1439 Applicability (Campaign Contributions) – Applies to licenses, permits, or other entitlements for use, and to contracts or franchise agreements other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts.

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): Blue Fern West, LLC (Applicant) and Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility “SAFER” (Appellant)
Councilmembers should review any campaign contributions received within the last 12 months from parties or participants to the proceeding and must not accept contributions over $500 from those parties for 12 months following the final decision (Gov. Code § 84308).

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, TO ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 546 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA

DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE
CASE NO. PP/EA 25-0003
WHEREAS, Blue Fern West (“Applicant”), submitted a Precise Plan and Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration to construct 546 single-family residences on approximately 81 acres, including onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater facilities, lighting, and open space areas. The project is consistent with the City’s Planned Residential (PR)-22 density designation (7–22 units per acre). The community will include a mix of single- and two-story homes distributed across four planning areas to provide a variety of housing types. The project is located South of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue on APN 620-170-009 (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is within the PR-22 zoning district, and is designated as Town Center Neighborhood by the Palm Desert General Plan; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the Project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be prepared and conduct proper notifications pursuant to CEQA guidelines, as the Project would have no potentially significant impacts on the environment with mitigation measures incorporated; and WHEREAS, the Project complied with the requirements of the "2024 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act for the City Palm Desert” Resolution No. 2024-035, an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and found 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; 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, the proposed Project establishes site layout, minimum lot sizes, circulation, recreation and open space areas, and location of single and two-story homes, including the allowance of two-story homes along the eastern perimeter of the project; and
629
Resolution No. 2026- Page 2
WHEREAS, the proposed Project conforms to the General Plan land use designation for Town Center Neighborhood and the development standards listed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance for the PR-22 zoning district; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the Palm Desert Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved the Project and adopted the MND and MMRP via Planning Commission Resolution 2904; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the Palm Desert Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved Tentative Tract Maps 39159 and 39160, via Planning Commission Resolutions 2905 and 2907 respectively, which were found to be consistent with the MND and MMRP adopted via Planning Commission Resolution 2904; and
WHEREAS, Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.60.080 establishes a 15-day appeal period for land use decisions and establishes that the City Council as the appeal authority for decisions by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2025, within the 15 calendar days of the Planning Commission Decision, the City of Palm Desert received an appeal application and fee from Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“Appellant”) appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2904, and agreed to an appeal hearing date of January 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Appellants reasons for an appeal state that an environmental impact report [EIR] needed to be prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts to air quality an biological resources; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 1, 2025, in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The public review period for the MND was from October 1, 2025 through October 20, 2025. During this review period, the City received a comment letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines do not require a lead agency to prepare written responses to comments received (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), written responses were provided to both agencies and are found in Section 2.0 of the ISMND. In response to the comment letters, the ISMND revised two (2) Biological Resources mitigation measures, added one (1) Biological Resources mitigation measure, and revised language on the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section. Revisions to the MND do not constitute substantial revisions and therefore did not require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5.; and
WHEREAS, Air Quality impacts were analyzed in the ISMND and found to have a less than significant impact. No comments were provided during the CEQA public review period related to Air Quality.
630
Resolution No. 2026- Page 3
WHEREAS, Impacts for Biological resources were analyzed and found to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A total of four (4) mitigation measures were incorporated in the ISMND, including three (3) from input provided by California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and
WHEREAS, in the City of Palm Desert’s role as the lead agency under CEQA, the Planning Commission found that the Project complied with the requirements of the "2024 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act for the City Palm Desert” Resolution No. 2024-035, an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and found 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. The Planning Commission further found 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 (MMRP). Furthermore, the MND was not substantially revised after public notice of its availability, and recirculation was not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) 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. Therefore, there was 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 were examined and determined not to modify the conclusions of the MND; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Section 25.60.080 of the PDMC, an appeal hearing shall be scheduled for a public hearing within 40 days of the date of the appeal filing, unless otherwise agreed to by the applicant/appellant; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Appellant agreed to a January 8, 2026 City Council public hearing for the appeal hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8 th
day of January, 2026, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Appellant; 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 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. 631
Resolution No. 2026- Page 4
SECTION 2. Appeal Determination. The City Council confirms the decision by the Planning Commission approving the Project; and
SECTION 3. Execution of Resolution. The Mayor signs this Resolution, and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

ADOPTED ON ____________.

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-__ 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______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Desert, California, on ______________, 2026.

ANTHONY J. MEJIA

CITY CLERK
632

CITY OF PALM DESERT

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2025
PREPARED BY: Carlos Flores, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services Madeline Luke, Consulting Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A NEW, 546 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA
DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE (APN: 620170009
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2904 entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT

TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 546 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE; CASE NO. PP/EA 25-0003”

2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2905 entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 39159 FOR MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE; CASE NO. TTM 39159 Master Infrastructure Map”

3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2907 entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A PHASED 546 SINGLE FAMILY LOT

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE; CASE NO. TTM 39160 Subdivision Map” BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

Case No.: PP/EA25-0003/TTM 39159, TTM 39160. TTM 39276
November 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
On November 4, 2025, the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission, upon staff recommendation, took the following actions:
1) Opened a public hearing for PP/EA25-0003, TTM 39159, and TTM 39160 and continued the public hearing to November 18, 2025.
2) Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2906 entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 39276 FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES 633
LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA AVENUE; CASE NO. TTM 39276 Finance Map”
During said meeting, the Planning Commission heard basics about the project, opened the public hearing to receive public testimony from both the Applicant and the public, and approved Resolution No. 2906 for Tentative Tract Map (TTM),TTM 39276, a map for Finance and Conveyance purposes only, with no development allowed to commence as part of this approval.

The remaining items continued to November 18, 2025 including Resolution No. 2904, a Precise Plan and CEQA determination for the 546 Single Family unit residential community (PP/EA 25- 00003) establishing the site layout, lot sizes, and development standards, Resolution No. 2905 TTM 39159, and Resolution 2907 for TTM 39160. No new items are being introduced as part of this staff report. Below is a staff report that provides information on the entirety of the continued project:

Background
The proposed project includes development of 546 single-family residential (SFR) units on approximately 81 acres, with onsite circulation, utilities, stormwater facilities, lighting, and open space areas. The Project is consistent with the City’s PR (Planned Residential)-22 density designation (7–22 units per acre). The project provides flexibility for construction by multiple builders or a single developer while maintaining a cohesive community design.

The proposed project includes a multi-map process to coordinate infrastructure delivery and phasing:
• Precise Plan 25-0003: This establishes the site layout and development for the 546 SFR units, minimum lot sizes, location of single and two-story homes, location of streets, recreation, retention, open space areas, and landscaping layout. • Master Infrastructure Map (TTM 39159): Establishes the project framework by subdividing the site into six lots, including three lettered lots for the spine road and retention basins, and one for the existing cell tower.
• Phased Subdivision Map (TTM 39160): Processed concurrently to create the residential lots and facilitate future sale or development of the parcels. This establishes the site layout and development for the 546 SFR units, location of streets, recreation, retention, open space areas, and establishes a phased approach. The Applicant may develop the project in phases as shown on the map.

Precise Plan
The proposed project includes development of 546 single-family residences a mix of single- and two-story homes, with the site plan showing restrictions on 2 story home locations, the onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater facilities, lighting, and open space areas. The 81- acre site is organized into four planning areas to provide a variety of housing types:
• Northwest: 88 homes on 5,000-square-foot lots
• Northeast: 255 clustered homes on lots ranging from 2,120 to 2,460 square feet • Central: 103 homes on 3,000-square-foot lots
• South: 100 homes on 4,050-square-foot lots
The Precise Plan, and its conditions, would run with the entirety of the project and require conformance for all future development. Development of homes within the project would require application(s) of additional Precise Plan(s) to develop specific setbacks, heights, architecture, and landscaping, but need to conform with PP 25-0003, as shown in Exhibit 1 below. PP 25- 634
0003 establishes an approval for site layout, location of single- and two-story homes, minimum lot sizes, and lot designs.

Exhibit 1– Site Plan
No specific architectural plans are proposed at this stage. Final architecture, landscaping, and lighting design will be prepared by future applicants. These applicants will be required to submit detailed architectural elevations, final landscape plans, and lighting plans to the City via Precise Plan, subject to approval from the City’s Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission. Future applications may be submitted for single or multiple planning areas. These future submittals will ensure compliance with the City’s design guidelines and overall community design intent and establish final development standards per planning area.

Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 39159 Master Infrastructure Map The Applicant is proposing TTM 39159 to approve the project framework by subdividing the site into six lots, including three lettered lots for the spine road and retention basins, and one for the existing cell tower. Approval and ultimate recordation of this map would allow for construction of 635
City of Palm Desert – Planning Commission
Catavina Residential Development

Page 4 of 9 ends

the master infrastructure of the site, including the spine road, mass grading, and common area improvements. Lot 1 includes the existing Cell Tower which will be parceled out in the subdivision and Lot 6 includes the future club house/recreation area.

Exhibit 2 – TTM 39159
Phased Map TTM 39160
636
City of Palm Desert – Planning Commission
Catavina Residential Development

Page 5 of 9 ends

Processed concurrently to create the residential lots and facilitate future sale or development of the parcels. This establishes the site layout and development for the 546 SFR units, location of streets, recreation, retention, open space areas, and establishes a phased approach. The Applicant may develop the project in phases as shown on the map. Each phase would require submittal of detailed architectural elevations, landscape plans, and lighting plans to the City via Precise Plan, subject to approval from the City’s Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission.

Exhibit 3 – TTM 39160 Phasing
A. Property Description
The proposed Residential Development will be South of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue. The project site consists of a disturbed, vacant lot that previously operated as the Santa Rosa Country Club Golf Course from approximately 1978 until its closure in 2015. The site is dominated by ruderal and non-native grasses and does not support any natural vegetation communities. There are two dried-up artificial ponds in the northern and central portions of the project site that are associated with the former golf course. Existing remnants of a cement cart path, clubhouse, cart storage structure, and asphalt parking lot are distributed throughout the 637
City of Palm Desert – Planning Commission
Catavina Residential Development

Page 6 of 9 ends

site. Approximately 1.1 acres of the southeast portion of the project site is developed with a cell tower, which would be established as its own parcel.

B. Zoning, General Plan and Adjacent Uses
The existing General Plan Land Use Designation is Town Center Neighborhood with a zoning of Planned Residential PR-22.The purpose of this district 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 du/ac), 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.

Table 1 – Adjacent Land Use and Designations
Existing Uses General Plan Zoning
Project
Site
Vacant Town Center
Neighborhood
Planned Residential PR-22
North Frank Sinatra Drive
and Single Family
Residential
Conventional Suburban
Neighborhood
Planned Residential PR-5
East Vacant Parcel
Portola Avenue
Town Center
Neighborhood
Planned Residential PR-22
West Single-Family
Residential
Golf Course and Resort
Neighborhood
Planned Residential PR-7
South Single-Family
Residential
Golf Course and Resort
Neighborhood
Planned Residential PR-7
C. Project Description
Site Plan
Access to the site would be provided via one access point on Frank Sinatra Drive at the northern site boundary and one access point on Portola Avenue at the southeast portion of the site.

Access and circulation improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City design and engineering standards, as shown in Exhibit 2. Key site features include distributed landscaping throughout the site, meandering pedestrian walkways, three retention basin located southeast of the site, and a recreation open space also on the southeast, as shown on Exhibit 1 above.

Architecture
The proposed Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs) and Precise Plan are intended to allow future applicants to construct the residential portions. At this stage, no specific architectural plans are proposed. An applicant will be required to submit architectural elevations, final landscape plans, and lighting plans to the City for approval. The project will conform to the City of Palm Desert 638
City of Palm Desert – Planning Commission
Catavina Residential Development

Page 7 of 9 ends

Zoning Code (Municipal Code Title 25, Zoning), which establishes design standards related to building height, setbacks, and open space. The Applicant prepared a preliminary landscaping layout (Attachment 4) for the common area landscaping. Prior to construction of landscaping, the Applicant will submit a Design Review application for Architectural Review Commission approval.

In accordance with Section 25.10.050 (Development Standards), the maximum building height is limited to 40 feet or three stories, whichever is less. Setbacks range from 25 feet along local streets to 50 feet along freeways, while two-story single-family homes must maintain a minimum 100-foot setback—or one lot depth, whichever is greater—from the project perimeter. Building separation standards require a minimum of 7 feet between single-story units and 10 feet between two-story units. Additionally, a minimum of 20 percent of the site’s net area will be dedicated to common open space, ensuring compliance with City development standards and promoting a cohesive, high-quality neighborhood design. The properties to the south will be setback at least 15’ by an existing easement that runs along the southern property line.

Per PDMC Section 25.10.050(B)(14), two-story, single-family detached buildings shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet. The Commission may waive this requirement when adjacent developments are planned simultaneously. The Applicant is proposing for homes on the eastern perimeter to be two-story homes, only setback 55’. The Applicant has submitted applications for a development directly abutting this east perimeter, as the same ownership, and requested to meet the allowance of two-story homes along this perimeter.

ANALYSIS:

The project site is zoned PR-22 which allows single family residential uses with the approval of a Precise Plan (PP) by the Palm Desert Planning Commission in accordance with Table 25.10- 3 for development standards and Section 25.72.030. The Project site is designated as Town Center Neighborhood by the City of Palm Desert General Plan. The project would need to conform with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning. The development standards have no side, front, or rear yard setbacks and would be subject to review in future Precise Plans when architecture and landscaping plans are submitted per planning area.

Table 2 – Development Standard Consistency
STANDARD PR-22 PROJECT CONFORMS
Minimum Lot Size. None 2,120-5,000 sq.ft.(per PA) Yes
Lot Coverage 50% No Construction Proposed N/A
Maximum Height 40’-0” No Construction Proposed N/A
Maximum No. of
Stories
3 Stories 2 stories as proposed by
the applicant
Yes
Maximum Building Size None No Construction Proposed N/A Parking
639
City of Palm Desert – Planning Commission
Catavina Residential Development

Page 8 of 9 ends

Under PDMC Section 25.46.040 Parking Requirements, there are 2 car garage or carport parking spaces required per single family residence. The proposed 546 single family unit residential development would require 1,092 covered parking spaces.

Environment Assessment/Environmental Review:

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA guidelines, an Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the project. The documents have been completed in compliance with the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The document 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), attached as Exhibit A in Attachment 1. The City published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 1, 2025, in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The public review period for the MND was from October 1, 2025 through October 20, 2025. The City received two (2) comment letters which have been responded to.

Public Notification:

Community Engagement
The Applicant met all of the requirements outlined in PDMC 25.60.160 Community Engagement.

This included conducting two (2) publicly noticed community engagement meetings on May 21, 2025 and September 10, 2025, with a City staff representative in attendance. The Applicant responded to questions about two-story homes, development timeline, traffic and circulation, and dust control. The meetings had approximately 33 people in attendance.

Public noticing was conducted for the November 4, 2025 Planning Commission meeting per the requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). A Public Hearing notice was published a minimum of 10 days before the hearing date on Friday, October 24, 2025, in The Desert Sun newspaper. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date certain of November 18, 2025.

During the November 4, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing, public comments were received with concern on distance to neighbors, traffic, and heights.

Findings of Approval:

Findings of Approval can be found in draft Resolution No. 2904, 2905, and 2907 ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution 2904 (PP25-0003)
a. Exhibit A Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Exhibit B PP25-0003 Conditions of Approval

2. Draft Resolution 2905 (TTM 39159)
a. Exhibit A TTM 39159 Conditions of Approval

3. Draft Resolution 2907 (TTM 39160)
a. Exhibit A TTM 39160 Conditions of Approval

4. PP25-0003 Site Layout Plan

5. TTM 39160 Subdivision Map

6. Prelim Grading Exhibit TTM 39160
640
City of Palm Desert – Planning Commission
Catavina Residential Development

Page 9 of 9 ends

7. TTM 39159 Master Infrastructure Map

8. Prelim Mass Grading Exhibit TTM 39159

9. Community Engagement Letter

10.CEQA Notice of Intent

11.Public Hearing Notice
641
642
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2904

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 546 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA

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 Precise Plan. Under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section

25.72.030(E), the findings for the PP25-0003 are the following:

1. The proposed location of the Precise Plan is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.

Project Compliance: Yes. It is the purpose of the PR district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, and community facilities. The PR district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the City with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval.

2. The proposed location of the Precise Plan 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.

Project Compliance: Yes. The Project has been reviewed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the PR-22 Zoning Ordinance, as well as engineering, building, fire safety, and utility regulations, to ensure compliance with all relevant safety and usability standards. The Project was found to not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the public, nor will it be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. The Project provides setbacks from adjacent properties that meet the standards of the PR-22 zoning district.
644
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2904
3 3. The proposed Precise Plan use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments.

Project Compliance: Yes. The proposed development conforms with all applicable standards of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, including all standards of the PR22 zoning designation. The Project conforms with all applicable development standards. Approval of the home design and development, the Project would need to apply for subsequent Precise Plan(s) applications to establish development standards, including setbacks and height, and architecture, including landscaping, consistent with the conditions of approval listed herein. This can be established per single or multiple planning areas identified on TTM 39160. Per Palm Desert Municipal Code section 25.10.050(B)(14), two-story, single-family detached buildings shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet. The Commission may waive this requirement when adjacent developments are planned simultaneously. The Applicant is proposing for homes on the eastern perimeter to be two-story homes, only setback 55’. The Applicant has submitted applications for a development directly abutting this east perimeter, as the same ownership, and requested to meet the allowance of two-story homes.

4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan
Project Compliance: Yes. The proposed use complies and is consistent with the site’s Town Center Neighborhood land use designation as outlined by the Palm Desert General Plan. The Project provides a single family housing and aligns with the surrounding neighborhood. The Project meets objective design standards and incorporates drought-tolerant landscaping throughout the site, enhancing sustainability and reducing water consumption in accordance with the City’s planning and environmental goals. The following General Plan Policies are implemented with this Project:

Land Use Policy 3.15 – The Project provides on-site recreational open space as required by the General Plan.

Land Use Policy 3.16 – The Project provides single family residential units at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding uses and satisfy the City’s objective for transitional development.

Land Use Policy 3.20 – The Project enhances and preserves the characteristics of the existing surrounding neighborhoods.

SECTION 3. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that the project complies with the requirements of the “2025 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines,” and is not exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA guidelines. The prepared Mitigation Negative Declaration and associated mitigation measures are the proper level of CEQA analysis. Under the State and CEQA guidelines, an Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the project. The documents have been completed in compliance with the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The document finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less 645
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2904
4 than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program can be found attached to this Resolution as “Exhibit A”. All Appendices are found on the City’s Planning website and on file with the City’s Development Services department. The Planning Commission determines that they adopt the MND.

SECTION 4. Project Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as identified in Exhibit A subject to the included Mitigation and Monitoring Program in Exhibit A, approval of PP/EA 25-0003, subject to the conditions of approval identified in Exhibit B, and TTM 39160, subject to the conditions of approval identified in Exhibit C.

SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City’s office at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Rosie Lua, the Secretary to the Palm Desert Planning Commission, is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 6. Execution of Resolution. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission signs this Resolution, and the Secretary to the Commission shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

ADOPTED ON November 18, 2025.

LINDSAY HOLT

CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

ROSIE LUA

SECRETARY
I, Rosie Lua, Secretary of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission, hereby certify that Resolution No. _____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 November 18, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:
646
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2904
5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Desert, California, on November ___, 2025.

ROSIE LUA

SECRETARY
647
648
FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025091375
Catavina Residential
Development Project
Lead Agency:

CITY OF PALM DESERT

PLANNING DIVISION
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Contact: Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services 760-776-6478
Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
40810 County Center Drive Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
Contact: Alicia Gonzalez
909-974-4933
October 2025
649
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. 650
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1-1

2.0 Response to Comments.............................................................................................................................2-1

3.0 Errata .......................................................................................................................................................3-1

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................................................4-1 651
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 ii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
652
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 1-1 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Catavina Residential Development Project (herein referenced as the “project”) includes the development of 546 single-family single- and two-story residences, onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater improvements, and open space areas. In the northwest portion of the project site, the project would develop 100 single-family units on 5,000-square foot lots. The northeast portion of the site would be developed with 255 six-pack clustered single-family units, on lots ranging from 1,976 to 2,288 square feet. The central portion of the project site would be developed with 88 single-family homes on 3,000-square foot lots. The southern portion of the site would be developed with 103 single- family units on 4,050-square foot lots. Approximately

15.4 acres of common open space would be distributed throughout the project site. Three retention basins totaling 2.5 acres are proposed.

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025091375) was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. The public review commenced on October 1, 2025 and concluded on October 20, 2025. The IS/MND and supporting attachments were available for review by the general public at:
https://www.palmdesert.gov/departments/planning/projects 653
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 1-2 Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
654
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-1 Response to Comments

2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
During the public review period, comment letters were received on the Draft IS/MND from interested public agencies and individuals. The following is a list of commenters on the IS/MND during the public review period.

Comment
Letter No. Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated
1 Dave Kereazis, Associate Environmental Planner
Department of Toxic Substances Control October 3, 2025
2 Kim Freeburn, Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region October 20, 2025 Although the CEQA Guidelines do not require a lead agency to prepare written responses to comments received (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), the City of Palm Desert has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.
655
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-2 Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
656
dtsc.ca.gov
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 3, 2025
Carlos Flores
Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CATAVINA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2025, STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025091375
Dear Carlos Flores,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Catavina Residential Development Project (Project). The proposed Project includes the development of 546 singlefamily single and twostory residences, onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater improvements, and open space areas. In the northwest portion of the Project site, the Project would develop 100 singlefamily units on lots approximately 5,000 square feet. The northeast portion of the site would be developed with 255 sixpack clustered singlefamily units, on lots ranging from 1,976 to 2,288 square feet. The central portion of the Project site would be developed with 88 singlefamily homes on 3,000 square foot lots. The southern portion of the site would be developed with 103 singlefamily units on 4,050 square foot lots.

DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. Due to the treatment of the golf course and the use of pesticides and herbicides, a number of contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present. The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring 1-11-2
657
Carlos Flores
October 3, 2025

Page 2 ends

further analysis are dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin.

Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSCSLs approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, maintenance shops, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed.

2. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any Project sites included in the proposed Project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of leadbased paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the abovementioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual.

3. All imported soil/fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's PEA Guidance Manual.

Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Catavina Residential Development Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance. 1-21-3 1-4 1-5
658
Carlos Flores
October 3, 2025

Page 3 ends

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMPPermitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Alicia Gonzalez
Project Manager
Michael Baker International / Consulting Firm
[email protected]
Kim Molina
President
Pacific Land Consultants / Project Applicant
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
659
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-6 Response to Comments
Response No. 1
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Dave Kereazis, Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
October 3, 2025
1-1 This comment provides a general summary of the proposed project. Responses to specific comments are provided below.
1-2 The comment states that the project site may have the potential to contain contaminants of concern (COCs) such as organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic based on the site’s former use as a golf course. If present, the commenter indicates that further analysis and sampling would be needed. As described in Draft IS/MND Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Draft IS/MND Appendix E, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), including OCPs and arsenic, were identified in association with the project site. No further analysis or sampling is necessary nor required at this time.
1-3 The comment states that if any demolition is proposed to buildings or structures, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints (LBPs) or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials (ACMs), and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the abovementioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, the commenter states that sampling near current and former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidelines Manual. The comment is acknowledged.

Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk were not identified in connection with the site as part of the Phase I ESA; refer to Draft IS/MND Section 4.9 and Draft IS/MND Appendix E. The Phase I ESA acknowledges that, based on the age of existing structures and buildings, there is potential for ACM and LBP exposure during demolition activities. As described in Section 10.0 of the Phase I ESA, prior to demolition of any of the existing buildings or structures, Federal and State regulations would require ACM and LBP surveys to be performed. For consistency with the Phase I ESA, Section 4.9 of the Draft IS/MND has been revised to acknowledge that the project would be conditioned to require ACM and LBP surveys to occur prior to demolition in accordance with Federal and State regulations. This clarification has been made to page 4-54 of the Draft IS/MND and is reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final IS/MND.

Page 4 ends

Construction
During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluids used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of 660
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-7 Response to Comments
hazardous materials utilized during construction. As required by various State laws, the construction contractor is required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law.

Construction activities could also result in accidental conditions involving existing on-site contamination. However, based on the Phase I ESA, no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified in association with the project site. The Phase I ESA acknowledges that, based on the age of existing structures and buildings, there is potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) exposure during demolition activities. In accordance with State and Federal law, the project would be conditioned to require ACM and LBP surveys to be performed prior to demolition activities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

This change provides a minor update, correction, or clarification and does not represent “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and would not result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND.
1-4 The comment states that any import of soil/fill should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern in order to meet the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual and to reference the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if soils import is required. The comment is acknowledged. Although not included as a recommendation in the Phase I ESA (Draft IS/MND Appendix E), Section 5.4.5 of the Geotechnical Investigation (Draft IS/MND Appendix D) recommends testing imported soils in regard to expansion and sulfate potential. As described in Draft IS/MND Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the City would condition the project to demonstrate compliance with the site-specific design recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Investigation, including those related to soil/fill import and their potential for contaminants of concern. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are necessary nor required in this regard. 1-5 The comment acknowledges the City’s Deputy of Director Services for providing the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND and offers availability to respond to any questions and/or clarification regarding DTSC’s comments. The comment is noted. Since this comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft IS/MND’s environmental analysis under CEQA, no further response is warranted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) requires that a lead agency only evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues.).
661
State of California - Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
October 20, 2025
Sent via email
Carlos Flores
Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
[email protected]
Catavina Residential Development Project (PROJECT)
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH# 2025091375
Dear Carlos Flores:

GAVIN NEWSOM. Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Palm Desert (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.' Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority unde·r the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code,§§ 711 .7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines§ 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. 1CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Conserving Ca{ifornia 's WiU{ife Since 1870
2-1
2-2
662
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 2 ends

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381 .) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take" as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code,§ 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Palm Desert
Objective: The Project proposes the development of 546 single-family single- and twostory residences, onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater improvements, and open space areas. Approximately 15.4 acres of common open space would be distributed throughout the Project site. Three retention basins totaling 2.5 acres are proposed. The use of artificial nighttime lighting during construction is not anticipated.

The Project proposes new sources of artificial nighttime lighting for long-term operations. The Project proposes the use of non-native drought-tolerant plants for landscaping.

Location: The Project site is located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert in Riverside County, California. The Project is located within Assessor's Parcel Number 620-170-009. The Project is located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and outside of a Conservation Area.

Timeframe: The Project anticipates that construction of the Project will begin in December 2026 and consist of five phases: Phase I - backbone; Phases 2 and 3 - southern half; and Phases 4 and 5 - northern half. The project is expected to begin operating in 2027 and to complete construction in December 2030.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The MND has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project's impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on biological resources and whether those impacts are reduced to less than significant. 2-2
2-3
2-4
663
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 3 ends

CDFW's comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW, including a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the MND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the MND may provide an incomplete analysis of Project-related environmental impacts.

The MND lacks a complete assessment of b,iological resources associated with burrowing owls within the Project site and surrounding area. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that a MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for avoidance of bats during tree removal and artificial nighttime lighting, as well as revising the mitigation measures for nesting birds, burrowing owl, and bats. 1) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code 2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
664
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 4 ends

or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

With regard to the CVMSHCP, per its associated Implementing Agreement (IA) and Permits from CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Wildlife Agencies), Take associated with Covered Activities will not be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will be consistent with Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5; therefore, all Covered Activities within and outside Conservation Areas must undertake measures to avoid the take of individuals, nests, and eggs of nesting birds. The CVMSHCP includes a general conservation measure that applies to all bird species to avoid impacts to habitat for nesting birds during the nesting season (CVMSHCP Section

9.7). Per IA Section 13.8, City is obligated to comply with all terms and requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies' Permits that create the CVMSHCP, and the IA, including compliance with laws that protect nesting birds.

Page 9 ends

dated August 21, 2025, indicates that "vegetation within and adjacent to the Project site provides suitable nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species." CDFW notes that the Project site and surrounding areas contain suitable habitat for both ground-nesting birds and birds that nest in shrubs and trees.

The MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1 for nesting birds, which indicates "within three days prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with project implementation that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically February 1 through August 31 in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), a nesting bird survey will be conducted." CDFW considers the mitigation measure for nesting birds in the MND to be inadequate in scope and timing to avoid or reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant. In alignment with the CVMSHCP's general conservation measure for nesting birds (CVMSHCP Section 9.7), CDFW reconnmends Project construction activities are conducted outside of the peak nesting bird season. CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds and their nests and eggs are avoided. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability 2-8
665
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of !Development Services City of Palm Desert
Ootober 20! 2025
Pages
of resources (Socolar et al., 20172
). CDFW staff have observed hat climate change
conditions :may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and ra ptors within the P mj ect site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site. CDFW therefore recommends the completion of nesting1
bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure compliance with alll applicable laws pertaining1
to nesting and migratory birds.

To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts to nes ing birds to a leve less than significant, CDFW recommends Mitigation Measure BI0-1 is revised as foUows, with additions in bold and removals in str�fu- :01::1-§t-l:

Mitigation Measure BtO-1: Nesting Birds
To the greatest extent feasible, the Prolect wiU avoid construction activities during the peak nesting season {Jlanuary 15 through September 15). Regardless , of the liime of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a -quaJifjed avi: an biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-clistur i bing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nest.ing behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid p,otential :
nest predation as a result
of survey and monitoring efforts. If actiive nests are found during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species, specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passermes and 50·0' feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based •on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside th-e ,established buffers, which shall remain on-site until a qualiified biologist determines "the young have fledged or the nest is no i1onger active .. Active nests and adeq:uacy -of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daUy by the qualified biologist until the qualified biolo. gist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologiist has the auth·ority to stop w-or:k if m&rur'9iR
nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. l.(!JiUi1iA tl1i:ee days J3Fi0F ts §FSl:IRG §,--aetivit+es-assesiatodwiU:i pmje�mplemeAtatieR that wo�le esswr duf.ing tho AestiAg/BreesiRg-seasen ef native hi� Sf:!esles peteAUaHy nes-tJRg-en the si�ttYpisally February 1 through ,Aiugust 31 in the project region, or as determined by a qualmed biologist)! a nesting bird survey ••■
,m be eonduoted by a qualified biologist to determine if astive nests protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty ,l\st arid/or the California F:ish a Ad 2 Sooolar JB Epanchin PN, Beissinger SR an-d Tingley MW (2017). Phenological shifts conserve thermal n1chies.

Proceedings of t!he National Academy of Stien ces 114( 49): 1.2:976-12981. 2-8
666
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 6 ends

Game Gode are present and sould be potentially directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. If active nests are found, slearing and sonstruslion within 100 feet of tho nost (JOO foot for raptors) shall bo postponed or halted at tho discretion of tho biologist, or until the biologist has confirmed the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 for revised MM 8 10-1, MM 810-2, and MM 810-3, as well as CDFW-recommended MM 8IO-[A] and MM 810-[8].
2) Burrowing Owl
On October 10, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission determined that western burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). During the candidacy period, western burrowing owl will be afforded the same protection as threatened and endangered species under CESA. If Project activities, including relocation, could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.

Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests or eggs is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill." Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

With regard to the CVMSHCP, the CDFW Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit #2835-2008-001-06 does not provide Take Authorization for burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs. To the contrary, section 3.5.6 of the NCCP Permit states burrowing owl "pairs or individuals will not be Taken" and reiterates that the "HCP/NCCP does not authorize Take of [burrowing owl] nests [or] eggs[.]" Therefore, throughout the CVMSHCP area-both within and without Conservation AreasPermittees must ensure that activities occurring within their jurisdictions do not result in the take, possession, or destruction of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs. Any 2-8
2-9
667
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 7 ends

activity occurring within the CVMSHCP area that results in the take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs would be unlawful and would not be a Covered Activity under the CVMSHCP. Per IA Section 13.8, City is obligated to comply with all terms and requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies' Permits that create the CVMSHCP, and the IA, including compliance with laws that protect burrowing owls.

Page 11 ends

developed, the Project site could be used by burrowing owl. Although there were no suitable burrow structures observed that could support this species, due to the presence of suitable foraging habitat and potential for burrowing owls to occupy the project site between the time the habitat assessment was conducted and project implementation, impacts to burrowing owl are considered potentially significant." The MND and its supporting documents lack information on if focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted and the methods used to conduct any surveys for burrowing owl. The MND and its supporting documents also do not indicate if the adjacent, vacant property to the east was surveyed for burrowing owl. Because the MND lacks the findings of recent focused surveys for burrowing owl following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,3 the number and locations of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site and surrounding areas are unknown. Given the lack of results from focused surveys for burrowing owl following recommended protocols and the lack of survey reports, CDFW is limited in its ability to provide biological expertise to support the City in reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant. CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the results of four focused surveys for burrowing owl within the entire Project site and surrounding area, including survey reports,4 following the guidelines outlined in Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and to incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for burrowing owl. Focused surveys are needed to inform appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant. 3 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=83843&inline 4 Survey reports should include details on survey methods and results, including, but not limited to, the names and qualifications of surveyor(s); a description of survey methods; a description of the conditions of the project site and recent photos; map(s) showing the locations of all suitable burrows, occupied burrows, burrowing owls, and burrowing owl sign; descriptions of burrowing owl behavior observed; California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) field survey forms, etc. For more information, see Appendix D, Survey Reports, of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 2-9
668
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 8 ends

CDFW notes that burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats.5• 6 CDFW also notes that there is also the potential for new burrows to be created by small mammals in between the time of surveys and the start of construction activities, and any new burrows or burrow surrogates have the potential to be occupied by burrowing owl.

CDFW considers the Project site and vacant areas to the east to contain suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls.

The MND includes Mitigation Measures B1O-3 for burrowing owl; however, CDFW considers the measure to be inadequate in scope and timing to avoid or reduce impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant. For example, this mitigation measure contains limited information on how and when focused surveys are to be conducted, and appropriate surveys for burrowing owl are needed to ensure they are detected if present. CDFW also requests that if burrowing owls are detected during focused surveys, survey results are submitted to CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the City initiate consultation with CDFW and USFWS to identify a path forward regarding the protection of burrowing owls. Both CDFW and USFWS are permitting agencies that provide take authorization under the CVMSHCP, and therefore, both agencies need to be consulted. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant, CDFW recommends that Mitigation Measure B1O-3 is revised with the following additions in bold and removals in striketi=lro1,1gh:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Focused and Pre-Construction Surveys Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a CDFW-approved qualified biologist in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version)7 prior to any Project activities, including vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall submit the results of focused surveys to CDFW and USFWS as soon results become available and before commencement of any Project activities, including any vegetation- or grounddisturbing activities. The information included in the survey results should be 5 Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on western burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Rapier Research 42(2): 87-98. 6 Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162-176. 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?Documentl0,=83843. 2-9
669
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 9 ends

consistent with Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, including a detailed map showing locations of all burrowing owls, burrowing owl sign, potential burrows, and occupied burrows (occupied means at least one burrowing owl or its sign has been observed within the last three years; may be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site); a description of the behavior of burrowing owls during surveys; a description of survey methods; and other items listed in Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation under "Survey Reports." Consultation with CDFW and USFWS must be completed prior to commencement of any Project activities, including vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow(s) or burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs cannot be avoided, appropriate NCCP (Fish and Game Code section 2835) or CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081 (bl) should be obtained from CDFW prior to commencement of Project activities, including vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be repeated when there is a pause in construction of more than 30 days. Preconstruction surveys shall be performed by a CDFW-approved qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted and the qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS. Project activities shall not recommence until consultation with CDFW and USFWS is completed. Within ao days prior to any §fE}l:!Atklist~iR!ij-aGt+vffiOS;-a-9\:lffeWi~wl-pre GOA Stfl:IGtion S\:I rvoy-sl:!311 se GO AG\:IGteEI ey a q1:1alified eiologist to determine the presence.laesence of e1:1rrowing owls on the project site and within a 500 fool 01:1ffer. Walking transects will ee spaced no greater than 30 meters apart lo ensure 100 percent visual CO\<erage of the survey area. The location of all eurro1,Ying owls or eurrows with eurrowing owl sign shall 00 recorded and mapped. A written report documenting the st:1rvey shall ee prepared fellowing the survey. If eurrowing owl indi•Jiduals or eurrowing owl sign aro detested during the pre construction survey, then CDFW shall ee no·tified lo dissuss appropriate avoidance measures. If avoidanse is not feasi0le, a eurrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (eOMMP) shall 00 de\<eloped lo ensure there are no direct impasts on eurrowing owl.

The eoMMP shall !:le appro¥ed ey GDF\/\/ prior to project implementation. 3) Bats

Page 8 ends

(Lasiurus xanthinus; CVMSHCP Covered Species) has a moderate potential to occur within the Project site, and page 10 indicates "the unmaintained palm trees around the 2-9
2-10
670
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 10 ends

perimeter of the Project site have the potential to support maternity colonies of foliar roosting bats within the palm skirts (i.e., dead hanging fronds). The removal or trimming of trees supporting maternity roosts within the maternity season (March 1 through September 30) is a potentially significant impact. Tree removal and trimming may occur outside of the bat maternity season (October 1 through February 28)." CDFW concurs that the Project site contains suitable roosting habitat for western yellow bat in the untrimmed frond skirts of native and/or non-native fan palms (Washingtonia sp.).

The MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-2 for bats, which indicates "to the greatest extent practicable, tree trimming and removal activities shall be performed outside of the bat maternity season, i.e., October 1 through February 28, to avoid direct impacts to nonvolant (flightless) young bats that may roost in trees. If tree removal and trimming occur during the maternity season, which is March 1 through September 30, a preconstruction bat survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to these activities. Each potentially suitable tree shall be closely inspected by a qualified biologist to determine the presence· of maternity roosts. If bats are not detected, the tree(s) may be removed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. If bats are detected, the occupied tree(s) shall be left in place and an appropriate buffer (as determined by the qualified biologist) shall be placed around the tree until the end of the maternity season or until otherwise directed by the qualified biologist." CDFW notes that some individuals or populations of western yellow bat may be migratory, although some individuals appear to be present year-iround, even in the northernmost portion of the range including southern California.8 CDFW considers Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to be inadequate in scope and timing to avoid or reduce impacts to western yellow bat to a level less than significant. For example, the measure lacks bat survey protocols that are appropriate to detect presence of bats and tlhe methods of removing palm trees in ways that minimize the risk of harm to bats.

To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts to wester yellow bat to a level less than significant, CDFW recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is revised with the following additions in bold and removals in stFikethFough:

Mitigation Measure 810-(2]: Surveys for Daytime, Nighttime, Wintering (Hibernacula), and Maternity Roosting Sites for Bats
Prior to commencing Project activities, a CDFW-approved qualified bat biologist shall perform bat habitat/roosting surveys to determine presence of daytime, nighttime, wintering (hibernacula), and maternity roost sites. Surveys shall be 8 Bolster, B.C., Bolster, B.C., (ed.). 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California.

Draft Final Report. May. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Paul W. Collins. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program, Sacramento, CA. 2-10
671
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 11 ends

conducted during favorable weather conditions only. Each survey shall consist of one dusk emergence survey (start one hour before sunset and last for three hours), followed by one pre-dawn re-entry survey (start one hour before sunrise and last for two hours), and one daytime visual inspection of all potential roosting habitat on the Project site. Surveys shall be conducted within one 24-hour period.

Visual inspections shall focus on the identification of bat sign (i.e., individuals, guano, urine staining, corpses, feeding remains, scratch marks and bats squeaking and chattering). Bat detectors, bat call analysis, and visual observation shall be used during all dusk emergence and pre-dawn re-entry surveys. If active maternity roosts are identified in the work area or 500 feet extending from the work area, Project construction will only occur between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but are not yet ready to fly out of the roost. Maternity roosts shall not be evicted, excluded, removed, or disturbed. If active hibernacula are identified in the work area or 500 feet extending from the work area, a minimum 500-foot no-work buffer shall be provided around hibernacula. Buffers shall be left in place until the end of Project construction and activities or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the hibernacula are no longer active. Project-related construction and activities shall not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise. Hibernacula roosts shall not be evicted, excluded, removed, or disturbed.

Also, removal of palm trees that contain roosting habitat for bats can subject bats to impacts ranging from permanent loss of day roosts, including maternity roosts, to direct mortality if avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are not implemented. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts to western yellow bats to less than significant, CDFW also recommends that the following mitigation measure is added to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-(A]: Avoidance of Bats during Tree Removal Tree removal work with the potential to house roosting bats shall be performed between September 15 and October 31 to minimize direct impacts to roosting bats. This time period is after young are volant (flying) but before expected onset of torpor (wintering inactivity). Tree remo,val work may also be conducted between February 15 and March 31, following winter torpor and prior to the start of the maternity season. No tree removals shall occur during the hibernation season, which typically begins in November or December (depending on weather conditions) and continues through mid-F,ebruary, due to the high potential for mortality of hibernating bats. Depending on weather conditions and the best professional judgement of a qualified bat biologist approved by CDFW, tree removal work may be performed in November if the forecasted nighttime low temperatures on the evening of removal and the subsequent four evenings do not drop below 45'F. In November, if weather is cold (i.e., forecasted nighttime low temperatures reach 45' F or less for that evening and the next four evenings), then 2-10
672
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 12 ends

no tree removals shall be performed. All palm removals shall require a two-step removal process and the involvement of a CDFW-approved qualified bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity. The following twostep tree removal process shall be implemented over two consecutive days: on Day 1, live palm fronds located above the frond skirt, and as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without supervision by a qualified bat biologist. 4) Artificial Nighttime Lighting

Page 4 ends

increase lighting at the project site compared to existing conditions. However, the lighting would be similar to the existing surrounding community. Further. the project would be required to comply with the exterior lighting requirements included in Municipal Code Chapter 24.16, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, which contains requirements to minimize the offsite illumination onto adjoining properties. Further, the project would comply with General Plan Policy 2.5, which requires the limitation of light pollution from outdoor sources." The MND lacks an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting, including impacts associated with long-term operations, on biological resources including migratory birds that fly at night, burrowing owls, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The Project site is located adjacent to vacant, vegetated areas to the east-areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, burrowing owls, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The Project's proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect wildlife in these vacant areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation.9 Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song10), determining when to begin foraging,
11 behavioral thermoregulation,12 and migration.13 Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it.10 9 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88.4: 9 12-927. 10 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130- 139.
" Stone, E. L .. G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:11 23- 1127. 12 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98- 108. 13 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191- 198.
2-10
2-11
673
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 13 ends

CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting associated with the Project's long-term operations on biological resources, and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to less than significant.

To support the Project in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for the Project's direct and indirect impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources, CDFW recommends that the City include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure 81O-(B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting Throughout construction and the lifetime· operations of the Project, the City and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward and directed away from surrounding open-space and agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/).

The City and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler. 5) Landscaping

Page 2 ends

installed throughout the site." The MND lacks additional information on landscaping plans. CDFW recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP "Table 4-1 12: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping" (pp. 4-180 to 4-182; https://cvmshcp.orq/plandocuments/). CDFW also recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants.

More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California's Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
2-11
2-12
2-13
674
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 14 ends

CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.

CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
~:·;~~
l_:84F92i="FEE.r024C8,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures ec:
2-13
2-14
2-15
675
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 15 ends

Heather Brashear, CDFW
[email protected]
Mary Beth Woulfe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
marybeth [email protected]
Lory Salazar-Velasquez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
lory [email protected]
Noelle Ronan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
noelle [email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measures Timing and Responsible
Methods Parties
Mitigation Measure 810-1: Nesting Birds Timing: No more Implementation:
than 3 days prior Project Proponent
To the greatest extent feasible, the Project to all vegetation and City of Palm will avoid construction activities during the removal or Desert ground-disturbing peak nesting season (January 15 through activities Monitoring and September 15). Regardless of the time of throughout all Reporting: City of year, nesting bird surveys shall be phases of the Palm Desert performed by a qualified avian biologist no Project.
more than 3 days prior to vegetation Methods: See
removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre- Mitigation construction surveys shall focus on both Measure
direct and indirect evidence of nesting,
including nest locations and nesting
behavior. The qualified avian biologist will
make every effort to avoid potential nest
predation as a result of survey and
monitoring efforts. If active nests are found
during the pre-construction nesting birdl
surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish
an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on
the ground. Nest buffers are species specific
and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines
676
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 16 ends

and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger
buffer may be determined by the qualified
biologist familiar with the nesting phenology
of the nesting species and based on nest
and buffer monitoring results. Construction
activities may not occur inside the
established buffers, which shall remain onsite until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer
active. Active nests and adequacy of the
established buffer distance shall be
monitored daily by the qualified biologist
until the qualified biologist has determined
the young have fledged or the Project has
been completed. The qualified biologist has
the authority to stop work if nesting pairs
exhibit signs of disturbance.

Mitigation Measure BI0-3 Burrowing Owl Timing: Focused
Focused and Pre-Construction Surveys surveys:

Consistent with
timing in Appendix
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been D of the Staff
confirmed on the site; therefore, focused Report on
burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted Burrowing Owl
by a CDFW-approved qualified biologist in Mitigation and prior to
accordance with the Staff Report on commencement of
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most any Project
recent version)14 prior to any Project activities, including activities, including vegetation- or ground- vegetation- or disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are ground-disturbing activities for all
detected during the focused surveys, the phases of the
qualified biologist and Project proponent Project. Preshall begin coordination with CDFW and construction USFWS immediately, and shall submit the surveys: No less results of focused surveys to CDFW and than 14 days prior to start of Project- USFWS as soon results become available related activities and before commencement of any Project and within 24
activities, including any vegetation- or hours prior to Implementation:

Project Proponent
and City of Palm
Desert
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Palm Desert
14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

State of California. Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?Documentl0,=83843. 677
Ca
rlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 17 ends

ground-disturbing activities. The information ground
included in the survey results should be
disturbance tor all
consistent with Appendix D of the Staff phases
or the
Project and when
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, there
is a pause in
including a detailed map showing locations construction of of all burrowing owls, burrowing owl sigIn, more than 30 potential burrows, and occupied burrows days.
(occupied means at least one burrowingI owl Methods:

See
or its sign has been observed within the last Mi
tigation
three years; may be indicated by owl sign Measu
re
including feathers, pellets, prey remains,
eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near
a burrow entrance or perch site); a
description of the behavior of burrowing
owls during surveys; a description of survey
methods; and other items listed in Appendix
D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation under "Survey Reports."
Consultation with CDFW and USFWS must
be completed prior to commencement of any
Project activities, including vegetation- or
ground-disturbing activities. If impacts t.o
occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow(s)
or burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs
cannot be avoided, appropriate NCCP (Fish
and Game Code section 2835) or CESA
authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit
under Fish and Game Code section 2081 (b))
should be obtained from CDFW prior to
commencement of Project activities,
including vegetation- or ground-disturbing
activities.

Preconstruction surveys shall be performed
bv a CDFW-annroved aualified bioloaist
678
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 18 ends

following the recommendations and
guidelines provided in the Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
preconstruction surveys confirm occupi'ed
burrowing owl habitat, Project activities
shall be immediately halted and the qualified
biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and
USFWS. Project activities shall not
recommence until consultation with CDFW
and USFWS is completed.

Mitigation Measure 810-(2): Surveys for Timing: Prior to Daytime, Nighttime, Wintering (Hibernacula), commencement of Project Activities.
and Maternity Roosting Sites for Bats
Methods: See
Prior to commencing Project activities, a Mitigation
CDFW-approved qualified bat biologist shall Measure
perform bat habitaUroosting surveys to
determine presence of daytime, nighttime,
wintering (hibernacula), and maternity roost
sites. Surveys shall be conducted during
favorable weather conditions only. Each
survey shall consist of one dusk emergence
survey (start one hour before sunset and
last for three hours), followed by one predawn re-entry survey (start one hour before sunrise and last for two hours), and one
daytime visual inspection of all potential
roosting habitat on the Project site. Surveys
shall be conducted within one 24-hour
period. Visual inspections shall focus on the
identification of bat sign (i.e., individuals,
guano, urine staining, corpses, feeding
remains, scratch marks and bats squeaking
and chattering). Bat detectors, bat call
analysis, and visual observation shall be
used during all dusk emergence and predawn re-entry surveys. If active maternity roosts are identified in the work area or 500
feet extending from the work area, Project
construction will only occur between
October 1 and February 28, outside of the
maternity roosting season when young bats
are present but are not vet readv to flv out of
Implementation:

Project Proponent
and City of Palm
Desert
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Palm Desert
679
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 19 ends

the roost. Maternity roosts shall not be
evicted, excluded, removed, or disturbed. If
active hibernacula are identified in the work
area or 500 feet extending from the work
area, a minimum 500-foot no-work buffer
shall be provided around hibernacula.

Buffers shall be left in place until the end of
Project construction and activities or unitil a
qualified bat biologist determines that the
hibernacula are no longer active. Projectrelated construction and activities shall not occur between 30 minutes before sunset
and 30 minutes after sunrise. Hibernacula
roosts shall not be evicted, excluded,
removed, or disturbed.

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A): Avoidance of Timing: See
Bats during Tree Removal Mitigation
Measure.

Tree removal work with the potential to Methods: See
house roosting bats shall be performed Mitigation
between September 15 and October 31 to Measure
minimize direct impacts to roosting bats.

This time period is after young are volant
(flying) but before expected onset of torpor
(wintering inactivity). Tree removal work
may also be conducted between February 15
and March 31 , following winter torpor and
prior to the start of the maternity season. No
tree removals shall occur during the
hibernation season, which typically begins
in November or December (depending on
weather conditions) and continues through
mid-February, due to the high potential for
mortality of hibernating bats. Depending on
weather conditions and the best
professional judgement of a qualified bat
biologist approved by CDFW, tree removal
work may be performed in November if the
forecasted nighttime low temperatures on
the evening of removal and the subsequ:ent
four evenings do not drop below 45.F. lrn
November, if weather is cold (i.e., forecasted
Implementation:

Project Proponent
and City of Palm
Desert
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Palm Desert
680
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 20 ends

nighttime low temperatures reach 45°F or
less for that evening and the next four
evenings), then no tree removals shall be
performed. All palm removals shall require a
two-step removal process and the
involvement of a CDFW-approved qualified
bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats
are killed during this activity. The following
two-step tree removal process shall be
implemented over two consecutive days: on
Day 1, live palm fronds located above the
frond skirt, and as identified by a qualified
bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the
remainder of the tree may be removed
without supervision by a qualified bat
biologist.

Mitigation Measure B1O-(B]: Artificial Timing:

Nighttime Lighting Throughout
construction and
the lifetime
Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the operations of the Project, the City and Project
Project proponent shall eliminate all
nonessential lighting throughout the Project Methods: See area and avoid or limit the use of artificial Mitigation light at night during the hours of dawn and
Measure
dusk when many wildlife species are most
active. The City and Project proponent shall
ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully
shielded, cast downward and directed away
from surrounding open-space and
agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the
greatest extent possible, and does not result
in lighting trespass including glare into
surrounding areas or upward into the night
sky (see the International Dark-Sky
Association standards at
http://darksky.org/). The City and Project
proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting
with a correlated color temperature of 3,000
Kelvins or less, proper disposal of
hazardous waste, and recvclina of liahtina
Implementation:

Project Proponent
and City of Palm
Desert
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Palm Desert
681
Carlos Flores, Deputy Director of Development Services
City of Palm Desert
October 20, 2025

Page 21 ends

that contains toxic compounds with a
qualified recycler.
682
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-29 Response to Comments
Response No. 2
Kim Freeburn, Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region October 20, 2025
2-1 The comment acknowledges receipt of the Draft IS/MND and thanks the Lead Agency for the opportunity to provide comment. The commenter states that comments provided for the project, by law, may be required to be carried out by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the Fish and Game Code. Responses to specific comments are provided below. 2-2 The comment states that CDFW serves as the State's Trustee Agency responsible for protecting fish, wildlife, native plants, and their habitats. Under California law and CEQA, CDFW holds these resources in trust for all Californians and provides biological expertise during environmental reviews of projects that may impact these resources. This comment is acknowledged. Responses to specific comments are provided below. 2-3 The comment summarizes the project description. Responses to specific comments are provided below.
2-4 The comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the project's significant or potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The commenter continues by stating that the Draft IS/MND lacks information for meaningful review by CDFW and requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised Draft IS/MND. The commenter also requests that additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are included in the Draft IS/MND to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant. Responses to specific comments are provided below.
2-5 The comment states that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed and without a complete, accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the Draft IS/MND may result in an incomplete analysis of project environmental impacts.

It is acknowledged that Draft IS/MND Section 2.2, Environmental Setting, includes a comprehensive description of the project site’s existing environmental setting and Draft IS/MND Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity, shows an aerial of existing conditions on the project site. The existing site conditions are also described in Section 3.0, Existing Site Conditions, of the Biological Resources Assessment for the Catavina Residential Project in Palm Desert, Riverside County, California, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated August 21, 2025; refer to Draft IS/MND Appendix B. Vegetation communities and landcovers, flora, wildlife, and special-status biological resources are all described in Section 5.0, Results, of Draft IS/MND Appendix B. These resources are also mapped on the project site and included as figures as part of Draft IS/MND Appendix B. As a result, the City affirms the Draft IS/MND has provided a complete description of the environmental setting and analysis of environmental impacts. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are necessary nor required in this regard.
2-6 The comment states that the IS/MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources in regard to burrowing owl and recommends a complete assessment of the environmental setting, 683
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-30 Response to Comments
project-related impacts to biological resources and mitigation measures to reduce project impacts to less than significant. Refer to Response to Comment 2-9. 2-7 The comment states that mitigation measures proposed in the IS/MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant and recommends additional mitigation measures related to roosting bats, artificial nighttime lighting, nesting birds, and burrowing owl. Refer to Response to Comments 2-8, 2-9, 2-10 and 2-11.
2-8 The comment summarizes applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey and agrees with the Draft IS/MND’s conclusion that the project site and surrounding areas contain suitable habitat for both ground-nesting birds and birds that nest in shrubs and trees. However, the commenter believes that Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would not adequately reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. The commenter’s revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 have been incorporated to Page 4-21 of the Draft IS/MND and are reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final IS/MND.

Page 4 ends

BIO-1 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey. To the greatest extent feasible, the project will avoid construction activities during the peak nesting season (January 15 through September 15).

Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors.

A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results.

Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain onsite until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Within three days prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with project implementation that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically February 1 through August 31 in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), a nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present and could be potentially directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. If active nests are found, clearing and construction within 100 feet of the nest (300 feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted 684
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-31 Response to Comments
at the discretion of the biologist, or until the biologist has confirmed the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged.

As documented in Draft IS/MND Section 4.4, Biological Resources, and Draft IS/MND Appendix B, a comprehensive habitat assessment and general biological survey were conducted on January 16, 2025 by three qualified biologists with extensive combined experience in burrowing owl ecology and survey protocols. The entire 77.3 gross acre project site and adjacent accessible areas were surveyed for suitable burrowing owl habitat, suitable burrows, individuals, and sign (feathers, pellets, whitewash, prey remains, etc.). The assessment found:
• No suitable burrows or burrow surrogates (i.e., ground squirrel burrows, pipes, debris piles, etc.) of sufficient size or depth to support burrowing owl were present anywhere on the project site.
• No burrowing owl individuals or sign were observed during the survey. • The site is highly disturbed, dominated by non-native grasses and mustards, with limited native vegetation and no evidence of active or historical burrowing owl use. • To the extent allowed, adjacent areas were visually assessed for suitable habitat and burrows with no suitable burrows or owl sign detected.
• The CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) outlines a three-step process:
habitat assessment, surveys, and impact assessment. The Staff Report states, “A habitat assessment is the first step in the evaluation process and will assist investigators in determining whether or not occupancy surveys are needed.” Further, “Burrowing owl surveys are the second step of the evaluation process and the best available scientific literature recommends that they be conducted whenever burrowing owl habitat or sign is encountered on or adjacent to (within 150 meters) a project site.” Focused surveys are not warranted for the following reasons:
• The requirement for four focused surveys is intended for sites where suitable burrowing owl habitat or sign is present, or where burrows are detected that could be used by burrowing 685
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-32 Response to Comments
owls. In this case, no suitable burrows, burrowing owl individuals, or sign were observed during a thorough habitat assessment.
• Conducting protocol-level focused surveys on a site lacking suitable burrows and sign would not yield meaningful data and would not improve avoidance or minimization of impacts. • The Applicant commits to the portion of the revised mitigation measure related to preconstruction burrowing owl surveys to ensure any new colonization or creation of burrowing owl burrows between now and construction will be detected and appropriately avoided.

No changes to the Draft IS/MND nor Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Survey) are necessary nor required in this regard.
2-10 The commenter concurs with the Draft IS/MND that the project site contains suitable roosting habitat for western yellow bat in the untrimmed frond skirts of native and/or non-native fan palms (Washingtonia sp.).The commentor recommends Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (Roosting Bat Avoidance) is revised to include bat survey protocols and methods of removing palm trees in ways that minimize risk of harm to bats. The commenter’s recommended edits to Mitigation Measure BIO-2 have been incorporated to page 4-21 of the Draft IS/MND and are reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final IS/MND.

Page 4 ends

BIO-2 Surveys for Daytime, Nighttime, Wintering (Hibernacula), and Maternity Roosting Sites for Bats. Prior to commencing project activities, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved qualified bat biologist shall perform bat habitat/roosting surveys to determine presence of daytime, nighttime, wintering (hibernacula), and maternity roost sites.

Surveys shall be conducted during favorable weather conditions only. Each survey shall consist of one dusk emergence survey (start one hour before sunset and last for three hours), followed by one pre-dawn re-entry survey (start one hour before sunrise and last for two hours), and one daytime visual inspection of all potential roosting habitat on the project site.

Surveys shall be conducted within one 24-hour period. Visual inspections shall focus on the identification of bat sign (i.e., individuals, guano, urine staining, corpses, feeding remains, scratch marks and bats squeaking and chattering). Bat detectors, bat call analysis, and visual observation shall be used during all dusk emergence and pre-dawn re-entry surveys. If active maternity roosts are identified in the work area or 500 feet extending from the work area, Project construction will only occur between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but are not yet ready to fly out of the roost. Maternity roosts shall not be evicted, excluded, removed, or disturbed. If active hibernacula are identified in the work area or 500 feet extending from the work area, a minimum 500-foot no-work buffer shall be provided around hibernacula. Buffers shall be left in place until the end of project construction and activities or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the hibernacula are no longer active. Project-related construction and activities shall not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise.

Hibernacula roosts shall not be evicted, excluded, removed, or disturbed.

Roosting Bat Avoidance. To the greatest extent practicable, tree trimming and removal activities shall be performed outside of the bat maternity season, i.e., October 1 through 686
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-33 Response to Comments
February 28, to avoid direct impacts to nonvolant (flightless) young bats that may roost in trees. If tree removal and trimming occur during the maternity season, which is March 1 through September 30, a pre-construction bat survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to these activities. Each potentially suitable tree shall be closely inspected by a qualified biologist to determine the presence of maternity roosts. If bats are not detected, the tree(s) may be removed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor.

If bats are detected, the occupied tree(s) shall be left in place and an appropriate buffer (as determined by the qualified biologist) shall be placed around the tree until the end of the maternity season or until otherwise directed by the qualified biologist.

The comment continues by stating that removal of palm trees that contain roosting habitat for bats can subject bats to impacts ranging from permanent loss of day roosts, including maternity roosts, to direct mortality if avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are not implemented. As a result, the commenter suggests an additional mitigation measure be incorporated into the Draft IS/MND to protect bats during tree removal activities. The commenter’s recommended mitigation measure has been incorporated as new Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (Avoidance of Bats During Tree Removal) on page 4-22 of the Draft IS/MND and is reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final IS/MND.

Page 4 ends

BIO-4 Avoidance of Bats During Tree Removal. Tree removal work with the potential to house roosting bats shall be performed between September 15 and October 31 to minimize direct impacts to roosting bats. This time period is after young are volant (flying) but before expected onset of torpor (wintering inactivity). Tree removal work may also be conducted between February 15 and March 31, following winter torpor and prior to the start of the maternity season. No tree removals shall occur during the hibernation season, which typically begins in November or December (depending on weather conditions) and continues through midFebruary, due to the high potential for mortality of hibernating bats. Depending on weather conditions and the best professional judgement of a qualified bat biologist approved by CDFW, tree removal work may be performed in November if the forecasted nighttime low temperatures on the evening of removal and the subsequent four evenings do not drop below 45°F. In November, if weather is cold (i.e., forecasted nighttime low temperatures reach 45°F or less for that evening and the next four evenings), then no tree removals shall be performed.

All palm removals shall require a two-step removal process and the involvement of a CDFWapproved qualified bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity.

The following two-step tree removal process shall be implemented over two consecutive days:

On Day 1, live palm fronds located above the frond skirt, and as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without supervision by a qualified bat biologist.
687
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-34 Response to Comments
This change provides a minor update, correction, or clarification and does not represent “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and would not result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND.
2-11 The comment states that the MND lacks analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting, including impacts associated with long-term operations, on biological resources including migratory birds that fly at night, burrowing owls, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. As a result, the commenter suggests an additional mitigation measure be incorporated into the Draft IS/MND to minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources. The Draft IS/MND includes an analysis of the project’s potential to result in a new source of substantial light and glare. As noted in Draft IS/MND Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, which limits allowable construction hours occurring between October 1st and April 30th to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Between May 1st and September 30th, construction is allowed between 5:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. As the project does not propose nighttime construction activities in conformance with Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, short-term construction-related impacts pertaining to nighttime lighting are not anticipated.

Once built, the housing development would increase lighting at the project site compared to existing conditions; refer to Draft IS/MND Section 4.1. However, the lighting would be similar to the existing surrounding community. Further, the project would be required to comply with the exterior lighting requirements included in Municipal Code Chapter 24.16, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, which contains requirements to minimize the offsite illumination onto adjoining properties. Further, the project would comply with General Plan Policy 2.5, which requires the limitation of light pollution from outdoor sources.

Based on the City’s existing regulatory framework described in Draft IS/MND Section 4.1, the commenter’s recommended mitigation measure is not necessary nor required in this regard. 2-12 The comment states that the Draft IS/MND lacks additional information on landscaping plans and recommends the Draft IS/MND is revised to include the Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping included in Section 4.0 of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The commentor also recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts including xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient irrigation systems. As described on Page 2-4 of the Draft IS/MND, the City of Palm Desert requires for development projects to submit a conceptual landscape plan in accordance with the requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 24.04, WaterEfficient Landscape. Planting materials would include a variety of trees and shrubs, including large accent succulents, specimen shrubs, screening shrubs, massing shrubs, cacti, groundcovers, and lawn. In addition, in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section

24.04.040, Landscape Documentation Package, the project’s landscape plan is also required to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). No changes to the Draft IS/MND are necessary nor required in this regard.
688
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 2-35 Response to Comments
2-13 The comment states that CEQA requires that information developed for environmental impact reports and negative declarations to be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations and to report any special-status species and natural communities detected during project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). This comment is acknowledged. Since this comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft IS/MND’s environmental analysis under CEQA, no further response is warranted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) requires that a lead agency only evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues.). 2-14 The comment notes filling fee requirements for a Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency in order for project approval to be operable, vested, and final. The comment is noted. Since this comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft IS/MND’s environmental analysis under CEQA, no further response is warranted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) requires that a lead agency only evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues.). 2-15 The comment expresses appreciation for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft IS/MND in identifying and mitigating project impacts and provides contact information. Since this comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the Draft IS/MND’s environmental analysis under CEQA, no further response is warranted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) requires that a lead agency only evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues.). 689
Catavina Residential Development
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025 3-1 Errata

3.0 ERRATA
Changes to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) are noted below. A doubleunderline indicates additions to the text; strikethrough indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Response to Comments, of this Final IS/MND. The changes to the Draft IS/MND do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page.

These errata address the technical comments on the Draft IS/MND, which circulated from October 1, 2025 to October 20, 2025. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final IS/MND.

The Errata noted below are global Errata and apply to the entirety of the Draft IS/MND. These clarifications or modifications are based upon applicable updated information that was not available at the time of the Draft IS/MND publication. These Errata are not considered significant new information and would not result in new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND.

SECTION 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Page 4 ends

Palm Desert City CouncilJanuary 8, 2026

Palm Desert City Council
January 8, 2026