Agenda packet, regular meeting — Palm Desert City Council, May 28, 2026 (part 3 of 8)

will be revised to correct this error, which will result in a corresponding shift in the numbering sequence.

Applicants comment letter:

3. Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP, legal counsel for the applicant, submitted a letter dated February 17, 2026, requesting that the Commission make an express finding that the Project also qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (See Attachment 2) Staff response: Staff has evaluated the applicant’s request and determined that the Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Accordingly, staff has incorporated this exemption into the recommended findings for both resolutions and will provide a detailed analysis of Section 15183’s applicability during the project presentation, including an explanation of the Project’s consistency with the applicable General Plan and zoning designations and the prior environmental review conducted for the General Plan Update. Please see the draft revisions to the resolutions reflecting these updates.

The Project is consistent with the land use, zoning, and density designations established by the City’s 2016 General Plan Update, which was evaluated in a certified Environmental Impact Report. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides that projects consistent with an adopted General Plan EIR are eligible for CEQA streamlining or exemption where no new significant impacts, or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts, would occur.

The following is a summary for clarification of the record:
• The Applicant submitted a General Plan Consistency Memorandum dated February 17, 2026, which provides additional evidence demonstrating the Project’s consistency with the City’s 2016 General Plan land use, zoning, and density designations.
• The Consistency Memorandum substantiates the City’s findings that the Project does not result in any new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of impacts analyzed in the 2016 General Plan EIR. • The Consistency Memorandum has been reviewed by City staff and is incorporated into the administrative record in support of reliance on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
• Staff finds that the Addendum, together with the Consistency Memorandum and supporting technical studies, constitutes substantial evidence supporting CEQA streamlining under Section 15183.

Accordingly, the Project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to Section 15183, and the City may rely on the existing environmental record to support approval of the Project. (Attachment 3a and 3b)
Attachments:
457
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

1) Site Access and VMT Memorandum
2) Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP, CEQA Letter
3) Resolutions
a. Updated Resolution No. 2913
b. Updated Resolution No. 2914
458

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Blue Fern, c/o Kim Molina, Pacific Land Consultants From: Sabita Tewani, AICP, PTP, Senior Transportation Planner Tyler Mathews, Transportation Planner
Arthur Chen, Senior Transportation Modeler
Subject: Site Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for Portola Springs Residential Project, City of Palm Desert
Date: November 10, 2025
cc: Kristen Stoner, Dudek
Dennis Pascua, Dudek
Attachments: Figures 1 – 6
A – Approved Traffic Scoping Agreement and Form and PP25-006 Completeness Review B – Vistro Worksheets
C – SimTraffic Worksheets
The following technical memorandum provides a Site Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the proposed Portola Springs Residential Project (project), located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive in the City of Palm Desert (City). Based on a project team meeting with the City staff on June 5, 2025, and the approved Scoping Agreement included as Attachment A, and PP25-0006 Completeness Review comments provided on the October 1, 2025, the following memorandum includes an access analysis of the project driveways along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive and a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening analysis per CEQA requirements for transportation analysis of the proposed project.

The City of Palm Desert has adopted the VMT metric and significance criteria for transportation impact analyses for CEQA compliance and requires level of service (LOS) analysis for General Plan consistency requirements. It should be noted the City adopted the Riverside County Transportation Impact Guidelines for Level Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) per Resolution 2022-74 on August 25, 2022, and subsequently released the City of Palm Desert Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (August 2023). The analysis is consistent with both the City and County requirements for the transportation analysis of a land use project.

1.0 Project Description and Setting
Figure 1 shows the project’s location at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Boulevard.

Regional access to the project site is primarily from Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north and State Route 111 (SR-111) to the south. The project would construct 156 single-family dwelling units on a 16.9 acre site. The project site is designated as Planned Residential in the City’s land use map and would be consistent with that land use designation. 459

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 2
NOVEMBER 2025
The site plan of the proposed project is shown on Figure 2. The proposed project would be accessed via three driveways: Driveway 1 on Frank Sinatra Boulevard, Driveway 2 on Portola Avenue, and Driveway 3 further south on Portola Avenue. The three driveways would operate with the following access restrictions:
• Driveway 1 (D1) would operate as right-in/right-out only driveways (i.e., no left-turns for inbound and outbound access) due to existing raised medians on Frank Sinatra Drive. • Driveway 2 (D2) on Portola Avenue would operate as left-in-right-in/right out • Driveway 3 (D3) on Portola Avenue would operate as right-out only The access driveways would be 32 feet wide and would be designed per City standards for residential driveways as included in the City of Palm Desert Standard Details and Design Guidelines1 .

Roadways
The City of Palm Desert follows the roadway classification system included in the City’s General Plan (adopted November 10, 2016) Mobility chapter. The roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below:

Portola Avenue is classified as a north-south Balanced Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Balanced arterials have four lanes with a median as well as sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycle lanes. Portola Avenue, south of Frank Sinatra Drive, is constructed with three lanes in each direction with a raised median and a Class II bike lane in both directions. The three travel lanes in the southbound direction transition to two-lanes approximately 250 feet south of Frank Sinatra Drive. The roadway is generally constructed with paved and meandering sidewalks with landscaping and trees along the eastern side of Portola Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and County Club Drive. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 55 miles per hour (MPH). Portola Avenue would provide access to the project via two right-in/right-out only driveways.

Frank Sinatra Drive is classified as a Balanced Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project. The roadway is oriented east-west in the City. The current roadway design is four lanes with a median and a Class II bike lane in both directions. The roadway is generally constructed with paved and meandering sidewalks with landscaping and trees along the northern side of Frank Sinatra Drive between Portola Avenue and Monterey Avenue. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 55 MPH. Frank Sinatra Drive would provide access to the project via right-in/right-out only driveway, west of Portola Avenue.

Country Club Drive is classified as an east-west Vehicular Oriented Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project. Country Club Drive is a four-lane roadway with a raised median, paved sidewalks, and Class II bike lanes. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 45 MPH.

Cook Street is a north-south roadway classified as a Vehicular Oriented Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project. Cook Street is generally constructed as a six-lane roadway with a raised median and paved sidewalks north of Frank Sinatra Drive and as a four-lane roadway with a raised median, Class II bike lanes and sidewalks south of Frank Sinatra Drive. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is generally not permitted and the posted speed limit is 55 MPH. 1 https://www.palmdesert.gov/departments/public-works/engineering-/standard-drawings 460

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 3
NOVEMBER 2025
Transit Facilities
SunLine Transit Agency provides public transportation throughout Coachella Valley. Bus Routes 5, 10, and 500 operate in the vicinity of the project along Cook Street, as described below:
▪ Route 5 operates between the Palm Desert Towne Center and Desert Hot Springs via Cook Street and Fred Waring Drive between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. The route operates at a frequency of 60 minutes on weekdays only.
▪ Route 10 is a commuter link between San Bernardino and Indio and serves north Palm Desert via Cook Street. The route has a frequency of 2.5 to 3 hours throughout the week and there is no weekend or holiday service available.
▪ Route 500 operates as a weekday-only school tripper service between Cook Street at University Park Drive and Town Center. The route operates between 3:50 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. primarily to prevent overcrowding on other routes due to increase in student ridership from the Palm Desert High School.

The nearest bus stop to the project site for Route 5 and is located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive. Bus stops for Route 10 and 500 are located approximately 0.2 miles from the project site, north of Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection.

Bicycle and Golf Cart Facilities
The Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element provides a comprehensive and updated overview of the City’s current and future recommendations to enhance multi-modal facilities which include pedestrian, bicycle, and golfcart classifications:

Class I: Class I facilities are off-street facilities, which can be shared between golf carts, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Class II: Class II facilities are on-street facilities, which can be used by either bicycles only or as joint use facilities used by golf carts and bicycles. These facilities are designated either by striping or through physical separations in the roadway.

Class III: Class III paths are on-street facilities designated through signage that do not provide a separate space.

Class S: Class S facilities are shared sidewalks that provide access for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Coachella Valley (CV) Link: CV Link is a regional off-street facility for new electric vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This facility will be overseen by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments.

CV Link Connectors: CV Connectors provide additional connections to the CV Link Facility through signage, crossing treatments, or separate facilities that provide connections from the city to the CV Link Facility.

There are existing Class II bike facilities that are striped for bicycles and golf carts adjacent to the project site along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Class II facilities currently exist on Country Club Road, east of Portola Avenue and on Cook Street, south of Frank Sinatra Boulevard. Figure 3 illustrates the bike and transit facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
461

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 4
NOVEMBER 2025
Pedestrian Facilities
As described under Roadway Facilities, the segments of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue in the vicinity oi the project are constructed with paved and meandering sidewalks along one side of the roadway while the opposite side of these streets is unpaved and has intermittent shrubs or landscaping. The Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection is constructed with curb ramps and pedestrian crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection. The traffic signal at the intersection includes pedestrian phasing.

2.0 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the project are based on daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition (2021), using the Single-family (detached) land use (ITE Code 210) trip rates. Table 1 provides a comparison of the proposed project’s trip generation with the previously approved project.

Table 1. Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use
Daily Trip
Rate/Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates and Trip Generation1
Multi-family housing (Low-rise) 6.74 trips/DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 Single-family housing (Detached) 9.43 trips/DU 0.18 0.53 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Land Use Units Daily
Approved Project (multi-family) 402 2,709 40 121 161 129 76 205 Proposed Project (single family) 156 1,471 27 82 109 93 54 147 Net New (Proposed – Approved) -1,238 -13 -39 -52 -36 -22 -58 Notes: DU = Dwelling unit
1 Trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

The approved project’s trip generation was estimated to be 2,709 daily trips, 161 AM peak hour trips (40 inbound and 121 outbound), and 205 PM peak hour trips (129 inbound and 76 outbound). As shown in Table 1, using the ITE trip rates for the single family detached units, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,471 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 82 outbound), and 147 PM peak hour trips (93 inbound and 54 outbound). Compared to the approved project trip generation, the proposed project would generate net negative (or fewer trips): (-) 1,238 daily trips, (-) 52 AM peak hour trips (-13 inbound and -39 outbound), and (-) 58 PM peak hour trips (-36 inbound and -22 outbound).

The proposed project would add fewer trips to the intersections and roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site compared to the previously approved project. Hence, the City staff did not require the project to prepare a new traffic analysis, however, to account for the new trips at the access driveways, the site access analysis has been prepared. The site access analysis is based on the proposed project’s trip generation estimates, i.e., 1,471 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 82 outbound), and 147 PM peak hour trips (93 inbound and 54 outbound).
462

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 5
NOVEMBER 2025

3.0 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution percentages were based on project access control and logical travel paths to commute corridors from the project site. Approximately 15% of project trips would travel north along Portola Avenue and 30% of the project trips would travel south along Portola Avenue. Approximately 40% of project trips would travel east along Frank Sinatra Drive and 15% would travel west along Frank Sinatra Drive. Project trips were assigned to the project driveways by applying the project trip generation estimates to the trip distribution percentages described above. Figure 4 illustrates the project trip distribution and assignment.

The project’s trip distribution at project driveways D1, D2, and D3 and roadway segments near the site is shown on Figure 4 Some trips would make eastbound U-turns at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to access the proposed project. A nominal percentage of trips could also make southbound U-turns at the Portola Avenue/Desert Willow Court intersection, south of project driveway D3. However, the percentage and project trips would be low and not affect the site access analysis shown below.

4.0 Site Access Analysis
The proposed project access driveways would operate as follows:
▪ Driveway 1 (D1)/Frank Sinatra Drive – Allows right-in-right-out movements from eastbound on Frank Sinatra Drive.
▪ Driveway 2 (D2)/Portola Avenue – Allows left-in movements from northbound on Portola Avenue and rightin-right-out movements from southbound on Portola Avenue ▪ Driveway 3 (D3)/Portola Avenue – Allows right-out movements only To analyze the operation of driveways, a queuing analysis was conducted at the project driveways. A queuing analysis is needed to identify improvements or need for turning lanes by assessing queue lengths at intersections and/or site access driveways. The Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection was also included in the analysis because of the proximity to the site. The queuing analysis was conducted for AM and PM peak hours under the Existing and Existing plus Project conditions.

An analysis of right turn deceleration lane was also conducted for all the inbound right turns from Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive into the project site. The City’s guidelines require analysis and review of available storage capacity of existing and proposed auxiliary lanes if a project generates 50 vehicles per hour or greater during peak hours. This is because:
▪ High volumes of right-turn traffic can cause backup and delay on the through lanes. ▪ Results in conflicts between crossing pedestrians and right turning vehicles and bicycles. ▪ Result in frequent rear-end and sideswipe collisions involving right-turning vehicles. 463

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 6
NOVEMBER 2025

4.1 Site Access Standards
The City of Palm Desert TIA Guidelines (2023) identifies policies applicable to site access and deceleration lanes within the city, as follows:

1. A left-turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume estimated to be 25 vehicles per hour (vph) or greater. The taper length shall be included as part of the required deceleration lane.

2. A right-turn deceleration lane is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume estimated to be 50 vph or greater. The taper length shall be included as part of the required deceleration lane length. Pocket storage length requirements shall be based on individual project characteristics.

3. A right-turn deceleration lane should be considered for lower turning volumes on high-volume streets.

4. A left-turn deceleration lane should be considered for locations where left-turning vehicles would be required to queue in a high speed (> 40 mph) through lane.

5. Installation recommendations for deceleration lanes and related intersection turning movement distributions shown in the final traffic study report will be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

4.2 Analysis Methodology
A queuing analysis, using SimTraffic 12 software, was conducted to determine the 95th percentile (design) queue of the existing and proposed storage lanes at the project driveways and the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection.

The project trip assignment was used to assess vehicular queues that would occur along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive and to determine the requirements for turn lanes and deceleration lanes. As seen in the PM peak hour, a maximum of 53 vehicles would make a southbound right-turn into the site at the Driveway 2 (D2)/Portola Avenue

4.3 Queuing Analysis
This queuing analysis focuses on the weekday daily, AM (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and the PM (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. The peak periods represent the highest volume of traffic for the adjacent street system. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour turn movement counts for the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection were obtained from the Catavina Residential Transportation Impact Analysis (Michael Baker 2025) were used as background volumes. The project trip assignment illustrated on Figure 4 were added to background traffic volumes to obtain Existing plus Project traffic volumes for the project driveways and the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection.

Existing and proposed geometric conditions at the intersection and driveways are illustrated on Figure 5. Table 2 summarizes the 95th percentile queuing analysis under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions. The SimTraffic worksheets are provided in Attachment C.
464

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 7
NOVEMBER 2025
Table 2. Project Queuing Summary
Intersection
Movement Storage
Length1
Existing Existing plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Portola Avenue/
Frank Sinatra Drive
NBUL 257 317 Yes 291 Yes 338 Yes

305 Yes
SBUL 178 236 Yes 252 Yes 242 Yes 234 Yes
EBUL 120 106 No 166 Yes 130 Yes 171 Yes
EBR 230 77 No 70 No 84 No 69 No
WBUL 143 134 No 118 No 137 No 154 Yes
WBR 100 69 No 59 No 78 No 65 No
Driveway 1/ Frank
Sinatra Drive
NBR3 170 Does not exist 56 No 48 No
Portola
Avenue/Driveway 2
NBL 150 Does not exist 23 No 43 No
EBR3 145 Does not exist 32 No 22 No
Portola
Avenue/Driveway 3
EBR3 145 Does not exist 28 No 23 No
Notes: NBUL = northbound U- and left-turn lane; NBR = northbound right; SBUL = southbound U- and left-turn lane; EBUL = eastbound U- and left-turn lane; EBR = eastbound right; WBUL = westbound U- and left-turn lane; WBR = westbound right. 1 Storage length is exceeded if the calculated distance is less than or equal to the storage length provided. 2 Based on 95th percentile queue length in SimTraffic 12. 3 Storage length is on-site.
465

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 8
NOVEMBER 2025
As shown in Table 2, under the Existing conditions, the vehicular queues exceed the storage lane at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection at the northbound and southbound left-turn lanes in the AM and PM peak hours; and, the eastbound left-turn lane in the PM peak hour only. Under the Existing plus Project conditions, the project would add trips to the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection and the queue lengths would increase nominally (less than 25 feet or one car length) at all the turn movements. The queue at the eastbound left-turn lane would exceed storage length in the AM peak hour, however it would be less than one car length. The queue at the westbound left-turn lane would exceed storage length in the PM peak hour, however it would be only one car length. It should be noted that average queues do not exceed the storage length under any peak hour. As such, the project would not contribute to excessive queueing at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to require any improvement. Additionally, the on-site queues at the project driveways would not exceed more than two vehicles and would be accommodated within the driveway s’ throat (storage) lengths provided on the project site. The highest volumes of right-turning vehicles in to the project site were observed In the PM peak hour when 51 vehicles make a southbound right-turn at the Portola Avenue/Driveway 2. Because this would exceed the threshold in the City’s guidelines, it is recommended that the project construct a deceleration lane to accommodate southbound right turning vehicles at the Portola Avenue/Driveway 2. The existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bicycle lane along Portola Avenue along with the transition of the southbound lanes from three lanes to two lanes along the project frontage would need to be designed to accommodate the southbound right deceleration lane.

4.4 Site Access Improvements
Project access and frontage improvements along the project site would be constructed according to the City’s standard requirements. Following improvements are proposed for the project access driveways:
• Driveway 1 (D1)/Frank Sinatra Drive: Construct Project access as a right-in/right-out only access by providing northbound right turn lane and an inbound lane • Driveway 2 (D2)/Portola Avenue: The project would install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:

1. Project would provide a median opening along Portola Avenue at this location to accommodate a 150 feet northbound left turn lane with taper for the D2.

2. Provide a deceleration lane to accommodate a total length of 100 feet of southbound right turn lane with taper at D2 along Portola Avenue.

A detailed design of the northbound left turn lane and the southbound deceleration lane at the Portola Avenue/Driveway 2 would be prepared by the project’s civil engineer and would be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
• Driveway 3 (D3)/Portola Avenue: Construct Project access as a right-out only access by providing an eastbound right turn lane
466

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 9
NOVEMBER 2025

5.0 VMT Analysis
In December 2018, CEQA Guidelines were updated to include a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts using the VMT methodology. This methodology was required to be used statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts” state that “generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and define VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” It should be noted that “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. OPR has clarified in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) (Technical Advisory) and informational presentations that heavy-duty truck VMT is not required to be included in the estimation of a project’s VMT. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized traveled.

The requirements to prepare a detailed transportation VMT analysis apply to all discretionary land development projects that are not exempt from CEQA, except those that meet at least one of the VMT screening criteria described below. A project that meets at least one of the screening criteria per City’s VMT guidelines below would be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

5.1 VMT Screening Criteria
The City uses the VMT screening criteria included in the County of Riverside Transportation Guidelines which include:
▪ Small Projects: applies to projects with low trip generation per existing CEQA exemptions or based on the County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, result in a 3,000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per year screening level threshold
▪ Projects near High quality transit: applies to projects located within half-mile of an existing major stop which maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods
▪ Local-serving retail uses: applies to retail uses where no single store on-site should exceed 50,000 square feet and the use is local serving
▪ Affordable Housing: applies to projects with a high percentage of affordable housing ▪ Local essential service: applies to local serving essential services such as day care, or police or fire facility, medical/dental office buildings, government offices or local or community parks ▪ Redevelopment Projects: applies to projects that replace existing VMT-generating land uses and does not result in a net overall increase in VMT
▪ Map-based Screening: The map-based screening eliminates the need for complex analyses by allowing existing VMT data to serve as a basis for screening smaller residential and office developments. This mapbased screening criteria is applicable to this project as it is a residential project located in a low VMT area As shown below, the project would screen out using the map-based screening assessment and not require further VMT analysis.
467

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 10
NOVEMBER 2025

5.2 Map-Based Screening Analysis
The map-based screening for the project is performed using the updated Riverside County Travel Demand Model (RIVCOM), with a base year of 2018. A model run was performed and its Daily Residential Home Based VMT per Capita was computed by travel analysis zone (TAZ) and compared to the Riverside County Average VMT per Capita.

The project is located TAZ #1605 of the RIVCOM model. A sample of the surrounding TAZ’s residential VMT values were calculated then compared to the Riverside County average to see if the project is located within a low VMT area and under the County VMT threshold value. Figure 5 shows a map of the project site with RIVCOM TAZs and Table 3 presents the VMT per capita values of the TAZs surrounding the proposed project.

Table 3. VMT per Capita Estimate for Screening
TAZ Residential VMT Population VMT per Capita
1603 7,742 552 14.03
1604 28,607 1,706 16.77
1605 (Project) 20 2 9.86
1608 1,235 115 10.74
1609 16,228 1,206 13.46
1649 1,652 97 17.03
1651 11,967 686 17.44
1655 17,034 1,093 15.58
1656 6,100 382 15.97
Total 90,585 5,839 15.51
Riverside County 42,904,715 2,358,439 18.19
The project is located in TAZ #1605 within the RIVCOM model, which contains a low residential VMT per capita value along with a low population. To get a more accurate VMT per capita value of the project, the surrounding 10 TAZs that have similar residential uses around the project site were selected and their VMT per capita values were calculated. The average of the 10 TAZs’ VMT per capita value is 15.51, which is lower than the Riverside County average of 18.19. The City’s Guidelines are consistent with the Riverside County Guidelines in that if a project’s VMT per capita value is lower than the county average, then the project meets the map-based screening criteria and the project’s impact can be presumed to be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not require further VMT analysis. The impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The approved project’s trip generation was estimated to be 2,709 daily trips, 161 AM peak hour trips (40 inbound and 121 outbound), and 205 PM peak hour trips (129 inbound and 76 outbound). As shown in Table 1, using the ITE trip rates for the single family detached units, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,471 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 82 outbound), and 147 PM peak hour trips (93 inbound and 54 outbound). Compared to the approved project trip generation, the proposed project would generate net negative 468

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 11
NOVEMBER 2025
(or fewer trips): (-) 1,238 daily trips, (-) 52 AM peak hour trips (-13 inbound and -39 outbound), and (-) 58 PM peak hour trips (-36 inbound and -22 outbound).

The proposed project would be accessed via three driveways: Driveway 1 (D1) on Frank Sinatra Boulevard, Driveway 2 on Portola Avenue, and Driveway 3 (D3) further south on Portola Avenue. A 150 feet northbound left turn lane will be constructed at Driveway 2 (D2) on Portola Avenue by providing a median opening along Portola. Per the City’s guidelines, a deceleration lane would be required along the project’s eastern site boundary preceding Driveway 2 for southbound right-turn movements. The existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bicycle lane along Portola Avenue along with the transition of the southbound lanes from three lanes to two lanes along the project frontage would need to be designed to accommodate a 100 feet southbound right deceleration lane.

Dudek performed a map based VMT screening evaluation of the project and found that it meets the screening criteria because it is located in a low VMT area consistent with the City and Riverside County’s transportation guidelines.

Therefore, the project is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA, and no mitigation measures are required.

7.0 References
City of Palm Desert. 2023. Palm Desert Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, August 2022.

County of Riverside Transportation Department. 2020. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service, Vehicle Miles Traveled. August 2022.

ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th ed.

Michael Baker International. 2025. Transportation Impact Analysis – Catavina Residential.

TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2022. Highway Capacity Manual, Seventh Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis.
469
1 3

FRANK SINATRA DR PORTOLA AVE COUNTRY CLUB DR

COOK ST
D1
D2
D3 2
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS © 2025 TMAP MOBILITY Earthstar Geographics SIO Jul 23, 2025 - 4:49pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig1-StudyArea Portola Springs Residential Development Project NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025
Project Location
Legend
Project Boundary n

PROJECT SITE
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
470
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025
Jul 23, 2025 - 4:50pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig2-SitePlan Portola Springs Residential Development Project n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2
Site Plan
471
&RXQWU\&OXE'U
*HUDOG)RUG'U
)UDQN6LQDWUD'U
9DUQHU5G

)HHW ˝
'DWH˛ˆ˘8VHU˛FJDUGQHU3DWK˛ =˛?3URMHFWV?M˙˝?0$3'2&?&(4$?3RUWROD6SULQJVDSU[ 0DS˛)LJXUH%LNHDQG7UDQVLW)DFLOLWLHV/D\RXW˛)LJXUH%LNHDQG7UDQVLW)DFLOLWLHV 3URMHFW%RXQGDU\
6XQ/LQH%XV6WRSV
6XQ/LQH7UDQVLW5RXWHV
5RXWH˘_'HVHUW+RW6SULQJV&686%

3'&
3DOP'HVHUW0DOO
5RXWH&RPPXWHU/LQN_,QGLR&686%

3'&
&686%
5RXWH˘_3DOP'HVHUW0DOO
%LF\FOH *ROI&DUW)DFLOLWLHV
&ODVV6WULSHG/DQH
6KDUHG6LGHZDON
*ROI&DUWV3HUPLWWHG
6285&(˛(VUL%DVHPDS˚3DOP'HVHUW*HQHUDO3ODQ˚6XQ/LQH7UDQVLW$JHQF\˘ 3RUWROD6SULQJV5HVLGHQ
%LNHDQG7UDQ
),*85(
&RDFKHOOD
/D4XLQWD
,QGLDQ
:HOOV
3DOP'HVHUW
,QGLR
5DQFKR
0LUDJH
&DWKHGUDO
&LW\
3DOP
6SULQJV
y{
y{˝˘
y{˙ˇ
y{
y{
y{ˆ
]^›
5 L Y H U V L G H
& R X Q W \
3URMHFW6LWH
?
472
1 FRANK SINATRA DR

PORTOLA AVE COUNTRY CLUB DR

COOK ST
D1
D2
D3
Oct 28, 2025 - 8:34am tmathews C:\Users\tmathews\OneDrive - Dudek\Desktop\In Progress\Portola Springs\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig4-PrjDist-Asgn Portola Springs Residential Development Project NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4 SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment n
Driveway 1 D1 Frank Sinatra Drive
Portola Avenue D2 Driveway 2
(4) 14
(62) 42
(12) 8
(10) 6
(8) 28
(5)
3 (15) 51
(10) 6
28 (8)
(15)
9 Portola Avenue D3 Driveway 3
Portola Avenue 1 Frank Sinatra Drive
(12) 8
(33) 23
(5) 3 (11) 37
(4)
14 (12) 8
Legend
Percentage
Distribution XX%
(X) Weekday AM Peak Hour
X
Traffic Volumes
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
Site Boundary
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
30%
473
D1 1
D2
D3
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025 FIGURE 5
Queuing Study Intersection Geometrics
Portola Avenue 1 Frank Sinatra DriveDriveway 1 D1 Frank Sinatra Drive Portola Avenue D2 Driveway 2
Portola Avenue D3 Driveway 3
Legend
X Study Intersection
Stop Sign
Lane Geometrics
Proposed Lane
Geometrics
Proposed Stop Sign PROT PROT
PROT
PROT
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
Oct 28, 2025 - 8:27am tmathews C:\Users\tmathews\OneDrive - Dudek\Desktop\In Progress\Portola Springs\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig5-QueuingGeometrics Portola Springs Residential Development Project n NOT TO SCALE 474
SOURCE: RIVCOM, 2018
Jul 23, 2025 - 10:56am tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig6-VMT SCREENING MAP Portola Springs Residential Development Project
n NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 6
VMT Screening Map
TAZ: 1604
TAZ: 1656
TAZ: 1655
TAZ: 1605 TAZ: 1608
TAZ: 1651
TAZ: 1603
TAZ: 1609
TAZ: 1649
TAZ: 1610
475
Attachment A
Approved Traffic Scoping Agreement and Form and
PP25-006 Completeness Review
476

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MADELAINE LUKE, CONSULTING PLANNER
FROM: CAROLINA FERNANDEZ, ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
SUBJECT: PP25-0006 COMPLETENESS REVIEW
DATE: OCTOBER 1ST, 2025
REVIEWED:

SUBMITTAL PACKAGED DATED AUGUST 2025
CC: CESAR LOPEZ
Engineering Department has reviewed the above-referenced pre-application for a new 156-unit residential development at southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Please see below for comments and development guidance.

Note: The following comments are specific to the completeness review of this application, please reference response provided October 4, 2024 under PA24-0009 for guidance on technical design and other requirements.

General

1. Traffic Study: It is understood that this application will utilize previously approved CEQA documents (prior approved proposal on site). Since the overall site access points and layout have not been modified and the trips from/to site have decreased (less units proposed), no additional traffic study is being requested.

2. Turning Template Exhibits: Show turning templates on Site Plan or provide separate exhibit. The exhibit/site plan shall show turning templates using CAD or similar software. Templates shall demonstrate adequacy for emergency vehicles to access and service the site.

3. Frank Sinatra Drive is classified as a Balanced Arterial on the City’s General Plan. a. The applicant will be required to construct landscape and irrigation improvements within the parkway along site frontage from Portola Avenue intersection to project limit to the west and connecting to existing (if any) improvements to the west..
b. The applicant will be required to install meandering sidewalk within the parkway along site frontage from Portola Avenue intersection to project limit to the west and connecting to existing (if any) improvements to the west.
c. The applicant shall show utilities and proposed connections on site plan – for reference during review. d. The City’s General Plan identifies a Class 2 bike lane along Frank Sinatra Drive. Plans shall identify existing bike lane. Crossings at driveways shall be per Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines.

4. Portola Avenue is classified as Balanced Arterial on the City’s General Plan. 477
a. The applicant will be required to construct landscape and irrigation improvements within the parkway along site frontage from Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to project limit to the south transitioning to existing improvements.
b. The applicant will be required to install meandering sidewalk within the parkway along site frontage from Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to project limit to the south and transitioning to existing improvements.
c. The applicant shall show utilities and proposed connections on plans for reference during review. d. The City’s General Plan identifies a Class 2 bike lane along Frank Sinatra Drive. Plans shall identify existing bike lane. Crossings at driveways shall be per Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines.

5. Site access along Frank Sinatra Drive will be limited to one driveway access with restricted to right-out movements. The general location shown on the preliminary exhibits is acceptable.

6. Site access along Portola Avenue as shown on the preliminary exhibits is generally acceptable – providing two access points to the site. The northerly proposed driveway shall act as the primary access point to the site and shall be restricted to right-in, right-out, and left-in movements. The proposed southerly driveway will be restricted to right-out movements.
a. A southbound right-turn lane for access to the site at the main access point is required. Design will be required to be submitted, length of storage capacity and transition will be per a traffic engineer recommendations and as approved by the City Engineer. Preliminary plans shall show improvements. b. Applicant will be required to provide a median opening to accommodate left-turn lane movement from northbound Portola Avenue onto development at the proposed northerly driveway. The design shall protect existing allowed movements for the development on the east side of Portola avenue – a median crossover with directional left turn bays.

7. Show benchmark and basis of bearings on preliminary exhibits, including proposed Tentative Tract Map exhibit.

8. It is understood from the provided exhibits that the developer may phase the construction of homes within the site. Please note that the project will be conditioned to provide all backbone infrastructure installation/construction with the first phase.

9. Provide list of existing and proposed easements on tentative map exhibit – indicate whether easements will be protected in place, realigned, quitclaimed, or vacated.

10. The preliminary WQMP mentions wedge curbs, please note that wedge curbs are not identified on exhibits and will not be allowed.

11. Maximum infiltration rate for the project shall be 1 in/hour.

12. Show grade break at driveways (access points) – all onsite generated needs to be directed to onsite basins.

Thank you.
478

MEMORANDUM
To: Cesar Lopez, City of Palm Desert
From: Sabita Tewani, AICP, PTP, Dudek
Subject: Proposed Transportation Analysis for the Portola Springs Residential Project, City of Palm Desert
Date: June 10, 2025,
cc: Nicole Cobleigh, Dudek
Kim Molina, Pacific Land Consultants
Attachments: A. Traffic Scoping for Portola Springs Residential Project B. Excerpts from the Transportation Analysis for Portola /Frank Sinatra Residential, March 2022, prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc.

C. Excerpts from the Transportation Impact Analysis for Catavina Residential Project, February 2025, prepared by Michael Baker International.

Dudek is preparing the transportation analysis for the Portola Springs Residential Project (project) which proposes to construct 156 single family homes in the southwest quadrant of the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra intersection in the City of Palm Desert (City). Access to the proposed project would be via three right-in-right-out only driveways.

Of the total three driveways, two driveways are located along Portola Avenue and one driveway is located along Frank Sinatra Drive. Based on the project team’s discussion in the June 5, 2025, meeting with the City staff, the following memorandum provides the proposed project’s consistency with the previously approved project and transportation analysis conducted for the Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Project in March 2022. Based on these studies, Dudek proposes to conduct a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening analysis per CEQA requirements and a Site Access Analysis of the project driveways per non-CEQA requirements for transportation analysis for the proposed project (see Attachment A).

Previously Approved Project
A comprehensive analysis for larger residential development of 402 multi-family units was prepared for the project site in July 2022 and the final MND was certified in December 2022. The project included one right-out access (exit only) along Frank Sinatra Drive, one right-out access (exit only) along Portola Avenue, and one right-in/right-out/leftin access along Portola Avenue.

Please note that based on
comments received on October
1,2025, the access
assumptions for Driveways 2
and 3 along Portola Avenue
were updated to include a left-in
at Driveway 2 and only right out
at Driveway 3, as shown in the
Site Access and VMT Memo,
dated November 10, 2025.
479

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR THE PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF

PALM DESERT
18192 2
JUNE 2025
Table 1 provides a comparison of the proposed project’s trip generation with the approved project using the trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021.

The study area of the previously approved project included 11 intersections which were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual) HCM) analysis methodology. All intersections were shown to operate at LOS D or better under Existing (year 2022), Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project, and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative Project conditions (year 2024). As such, no traffic impacts were identified, nor off-site intersection improvements were required. Because no traffic effects or improvements were identified in the transportation analysis of the approved project, the proposed project would not likely result in operational deficiencies or level of service below LOS D. Excerpts from the Transportation Analysis for Portola /Frank Sinatra Residential, March 2022 are provided as attachment B to this memo.

Additionally, results of the recently completed transportation study for the Catavina Residential Project (February 2025) were reviewed. The Catavina Residential Project would construct 546 single family dwelling units on a vacant site adjacent to the proposed project site. Vehicular access to the Catavina Residential Project be provided via a full access driveway on Frank Sinatra Drive (directly across from Hollister Drive) and a full access driveway on Portola Avenue (directly across from Desert Willow Court). The Catavina Residential Project is anticipated to be completed in Year 2027 and is forecast to generate approximately 4,810 daily trips with 349 AM peak hour trips and 490 PM peak hour trips. The study area included 8 intersections (including project access driveways) and 3 roadway segments which were analyzed using the HCM methodology. All intersections and roadway segments were 480

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR THE PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF

PALM DESERT
18192 3
JUNE 2025
shown to operate at LOS D or better under Existing (year 2025), Existing plus Project, Opening Year 2027 and Opening Year 2027 plus Project. As such, no traffic impacts were identified, nor off-site intersection improvements were required. Excerpts from the Transportation Impact Analysis for Catavina Residential, February 2025 are provided as Attachment C to this memo.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening
The VMT screening analysis for the previously approved project and Catavina Residential Project was conducted using the RIVTAM/RIVCOM travel demand model to satisfy the map-based screening criteria using the County of Riverside thresholds. Both the proposed project site and the Catavina Residential Project site are located within the same traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The average VMT per capita of the Project TAZ is lower than the County’s VMT per capita (18.26). As shown in the scoping form (Attachment A), the proposed project would also screen out and not require further VMT analysis. The impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Proposed Scope of Work for Portola Springs
Based on the information provided above, it can be concluded that because the proposed project generates fewer trips than the previously approved project and has similar residential use as the TAZ it is located within, the proposed project would not result in significant LOS or VMT impacts.

The proposed project access driveways would allow right-in-right-out movements from westbound Portola Avenue and southbound Frank Sinatra Drive. Based on the project’s trip distribution (see Figure 3 and Table 2, Attachment A), few trips would make northbound U-turn and eastbound U-turn at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to access the proposed project. Dudek will also provide an analysis of right turn deceleration lane in the proposed analysis. From the preliminary analysis, the proposed project would warrant a southbound deceleration right turn lane at Driveway 2/Portola Avenue access to facilitate access into the project site. Driveway 1 or Driveway 3 would not warrant a right turn deceleration lane. As shown on Figure 1 in Attachment A, all the project driveways have a width of 32 feet. None of the driveways would have gates and would provide both vehicular and emergency access to the proposed project.

Dudek has revised the scope of analysis for the proposed project to include a Site Access Analysis of the project’s driveways (Driveways 1, 2 and 3) for Existing plus Project conditions only. A screening analysis using RIVCOM travel demand model to demonstrate map-based screening for project’s VMT has been included in Attachment A. Please review Attachment A Traffic Scoping for Portola Springs Residential Project. The results of the proposed project’s VMT Screening and Site Access Analysis will be provided in a technical memorandum. 481
Attachment A
Traffic Scoping Memo for the Portola Springs
Residential Project
• Scoping Form
• Table 1: Project Trip Generation
• Table 2: Project Trip Assignment for Site Access Analysis • Figure1: Site Plan
• Figure 2: VMT Screening Map
• Figure 3: Trip Distribution and Assignment
• Worksheets from Vistro Software: Intersection and Driveway Trips 482

!"#$%&'()'*++,+&-(.#*(-*)..%"(%,$)"-(!-/01 2
34
25
672 4 8924:;5 <;=;>2?;6

7;9 5@9A B2:5A 8@A C
@DEA
86A 5 6; @A A 2A FA )G(-HIJ('KLKHMNIOL(!OPHQKR((DF5FE 5 <SA
<SA 5T
A
T
A 5
B B ? UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ? UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 4AUUUV UUU@ D W6E X4AUUUV
X
W492X8 8;42 9
D2EA ( 156 single family homes located in the southwest quadrant of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, Palm Desert
VMT Analysis: The project's VMT screening analysis was conducted using the baseline VMT from the RIVCOM Travel Demand Model. Figure 2 provides the VMT per capita of the project's TAZ, which is 9.86. The County's threshold VMT is 18.20 VMT per capita.

Therefore, the project can be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. The project's VMT impact would be less than significant. .

The project access is via three right-in-right-out driveways. See Figure 1 Portola Springs (previously Catavina East) 620-400-031 Sabita Tewani, Dudek Kim Molina,Pacific Land Consultants 760-479-4109 714-782-4271 [email protected] [email protected] TC Neighborhood TC Neighborhood 0 0 0 27 82 109 0 0 0 93 54 147 ✔ ✔
P.R.22 P.R.22
483

!"#$%&"'()*$+&,%-".%/0$%120%)34"5 6 7 6 8 6 96 :;<;
=
>!" +-?*$)23@"#$+AA%-B

CDE
FB
G;HB
;F:=B I;
C
JB K
L
;

B
.!M02@N"%30($/(-0%)3/4 " :OPQRSTUVWXYZ[T[\T]Y^_`_\aTbc[Y]T\[dY]Te]\XYZ[`fT[]_eTgYaY]b[_\ahi_`[]_WV[_\aTb]YTiY[Y]j_aYifT\]T Z\jjYa[`Tc]\jT\[dY]TbgYaZ_Y`kTlbeT_`T]YmV_]YikTnaTgYaY]bofT[dYTj_a_jVjTb]YbT[\TWYT`[Vi_YiT`dbooT_aZoViYTbapT_a[Y]`YZ[_\aT\cTqT \]Tj\]YTrs\ooYZ[\]tT\]Td_gdY]TZob``_c_Zb[_\aT`[]YY[`fTb[Tud_ZdT[dYTe]\e\`YiTe]\XYZ[Tu_ooTbiiTvwT\]Tj\]YTeYbxTd\V]T[]_e`fTa\[T YyZYYi_agTbTvzj_oYT]bi_V`Tc]\jT[dYTe]\XYZ[T`_[YkTQdYT{VWo_ZT|\]x`T}Yeb][jYa[TjbpT]YmV_]YTiY^_b[_\aTc]\jT[dY`YT]YmV_]YjYa[`T Wb`YiT\aT[dYTo\Zb[_\ak~A Site Access analysis is proposed for the following under Existing plus Project conditons:

"
!"M02@N"
)+@+N"M(*(30/4:OPQRSTUVWXYZ[T[\T]Y^_`_\aTbc[Y]T\[dY]Te]\XYZ[`fT[]_eTgYaY]b[_\ahi_`[]_WV[_\aTb]YT iY[Y]j_aYifT\]TZ\jjYa[`Tc]\jT\[dY]TbgYaZ_Y`kTlbeT_`T]YmV_]YikTnaTgYaY]bofT[dYTj_a_jVjTb]YbT[\TWYT`[Vi_YiT`dbooT_aZoViYTbapT _a[Y]`YZ[_\aT\cTqT\]Tj\]YTrs\ooYZ[\]tT\]Td_gdY]TZob``_c_Zb[_\aT`[]YY[`fTb[Tud_ZdT[dYTe]\e\`YiTe]\XYZ[Tu_ooTbiiTvwT\]Tj\]YTeYbxTd\V]T []_e`fTa\[TYyZYYi_agTbTvzj_oYT]bi_V`Tc]\jT[dYTe]\XYZ[T`_[YkTQdYT{VWo_ZT|\]x`T}Yeb][jYa[TjbpT]YmV_]YTiY^_b[_\aTc]\jT[dY`YT ]YmV_]YjYa[`TWb`YiT\aT[dYTo\Zb[_\ak~

"
!0,($"2$%/@%-0%)3+"&+-0/4 ;
CG;
E

F5

C
B "
"

'!M%0("+3:
;
= !"%/0%3*">)3@%0%)3/4"Q]bcc_ZTZ\Va[Tib[bTjV`[TWYToY``T[dbaTqTpYb]`T\oikT{]\^_iYT[]bcc_ZTZ\Va[Tib[Y`T_cTV`_agT\[dY]T[dbaT qzpYb]z\oiTZ\Va[`kaoY``T\[dY]u_`YTbee]\^YiTWpT[dYTs_[pTRag_aYY]fTZ\Va[`T`dbooTWYTeY]c\]jYiTiV]_agTzTbkjkTbaiTzTekjkfT j_iibpTudYaTaYb]WpT`Zd\\o`kTUYb`\aboTeYbxTcbZ[\]TjbpTWYT]YmV_]YiT[\TWYTbeeo_YiT[\TZ\Va[`T[bxYaTiV]_agT[dYT\cc`Yb`\aT_aT[dYT s\bZdYoobTbooYpk~ :=

4.

5.
15 30 40 15 2028 NA NA NA NA Driveway 1 - D1/Frank Sinatra Dr Driveway 3 - D3/Portola Ave Driveway 2 - D2/Portola Ave ✔ NA
484

F

!"#$%&'()('#(**+&*#,-#.&#/001&**&0#(2#,3&#$,+04#5(2#/00(,(-2#,-#,3&#*,/20/10#/2/64*(*#0&*'1(.&0# (2#,3&#7+(0&6(2&89:; <=>?@ABCDBEFGBEHIDDJKBLEMNOBLEIEGLBEFIEBPIBEHIDDJKBLJQRISBJLTIUUGIHLBEVBWGBXIHHIREGNYB<VHBLJZJSIHBLEIEGZGRE[BIEBIRBG\JLEJRQB MRLJQRISJ]GNBVEFGHBLUGKJDJKBJEGZLBEVBWGBINNHGLLGNBMRNGHBG\JLEJRQBKVRNJEJVRL^B_`FVMHBIUUHVIKFBEHIDDJKBaVSMZGBJRDVHZIEJVRBZMLEB WGBLMWZJEEGNBJRBINNJEJVRBEVBEFGBUGIbBFVMHSOBEMHRJRQBZVaGZGREBKVMRELBDVHBEFIEBJREGHLGKEJVRcBdUGKJDJKBJEGZLBEVBWGBINNHGLLGNBIHGB XIHHIREBIRISOLJL^BLJEGBIKKGLL^BVR`LJEGBKJHKMSIEJVR^BUIHbJRQ^BKVRLJLEGRKOBXJEFBUSIRLBLMUUVHEJRQBWJKOKSGL^BUGNGLEHJIRL^BIRNBEHIRLJE^B IRNBVEFGHLcBeEEIKFBUHVUVLGNBIRISOLJLBLKGRIHJVLB<OGIHLBUSMLBUHVUVLGNBDVHGKILEJRQBIUUHVIKF[BIRNBIEEIKFBIBUHVUVLGNBUFILJRQB IUUHVIKFBJDBEFGBUHVfGKEBJLBUFILGNc[B

g&'-hh&20&0#.4i# j%%1-k&0#$'-%(2l#jl1&&h&2,i# :mno p ppoqo p p
rs p
q

qt not #
?FGBuJEOBVDBvISZBwGLGHEBHGLGHaGLBEFGBHJQFEBEVBMLG^BLFIHG^BIRNBHGUHVNMKGBEFGBJRDVHZIEJVRBJRKSMNJRQ^BWMEBRVEBSJZJEGNBEV^BEHIDDJKB KVMREL^BG\FJWJEL^BIRNBLMHaGOLBUHVaJNGNBJRBISSBLMWZJEEGNBEHIDDJKBLEMNJGLBIRNBxy?BILLGLLZGRELcBBuFIRQGLBEVBEFGBLKVUGBVDBXVHb^B LJEGBVKKMUIRKOBVHBMLG^BLzMIHGBDVVEIQG^BIRNTVHBUGHZJEEGNBIKEJaJEJGLBZIOBHGzMJHGBIBHGLMWZJEEISBVHBIZGRNZGREBEVBEFGBLKVUJRQB IQHGGZGREc B B{|}~{~

Sabita Tewani, Dudek June 10, 2025
485
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-family (detached) 210 9.43 0.18 0.53 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Single Family Homes 210 156 DUs 1,471 27 82 109 93 54 147 1,471 27 82 109 93 54 147
Notes:

PM Peak Hour
Total
per DU
Trip Generation
Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition , 2021.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Size/Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour
Trip Rates
ITE Code
Trip Generation, Portola Springs 486
Project Driveway/Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Right-turn
deceleration lane
warranted?
NBL
NBT
NBR 62 42
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR 4 14
WBL
WBT 12 8
WBR
NBL
NBT 8 28
NBR
SBL
SBT 12 29
SBR 16 53 Yes
EBL
EBT
EBR 6
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT 8 28
NBR
SBL
SBT 14 9
SBR 7 26
EBL
EBT
EBR 10 6
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBU 8 28
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT 4 14
SBR
EBU 12 8
EBL 12 8
EBT 33 23
EBR 5 3
WBL 11 37
WBT
WBR
Table 2. Project Trip Assignment for Site Access Analysis Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra
Drive
Driveway 1/Frank Sinatra
Drive
Driveway 2/Portola Avenue
Driveway 3/Portola Avenue
487
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025
Jun 10, 2025 - 3:49pm tmathews C:\Users\tmathews\OneDrive - Dudek\Desktop\In Progress\Portola Springs\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: ScopeFig1-SitePlan Portola Springs Residential Development Project n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1
Site Plan
488
SOURCE: RIVCOM, 2018
May 30, 2025 - 4:00pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: ScopeFig4-VMT SCREENING MAP n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2
VMT Screening Map
Portola Springs Residential Development Project 489
1 3

FRANK SINATRA DR PORTOLA RD

COUNTRY CLUB DR

COOK ST
D1
D2
D3
2 May 30, 2025 - 4:05pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: ScopeFig2-PrjDist-Asgn

NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025 FIGURE 3
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Portola Springs Residential Development Project n
Cook Street 2 Frank Sinatra Drive
Portola Road 3 Country Club Drive
(25) 18
(8) 5 (3) 9
(8) 28
(3) 9
10 (3)
(2) 9
(8) 5
(8)
5 (8) 5
North Project Access D1 Frank Sinatra Drive
Portola Road D2 Central Project Access
(4) 14
(62) 42
(12) 8
(10) 6
28 (8)
(12)
29 (16) 53
(10) 6
28 (8)
(14)
9 (7) 26
Portola Road D3 South Project Access
Portola Road 1 Frank Sinatra Drive
(12) 8
(33) 23
(5) 3 (11) 37
(4)
14 (8) 28
(12) 8
Legend
X
Percentage
Distribution XX%
Study Intersection
(X) Weekday AM Peak Hour
X
Traffic Volumes
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
Site Boundary
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
30%
490
Attachment B
Vistro Worksheets
491
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 1 Project_AM Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips Total 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
492
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 1 Project_AM Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

Zone / Gate Share % Trips Share % Trips
2: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
3: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
4: Gate 30.00 8 30.00 26
5: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
6: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
7: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
8: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
Total 100.00 28 100.00 82
Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
493
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Portola Avenue/Central ProjePortola Avenue/South Project Portola Ave/Frank Sinatra Dr Cook St/Frank Sinatra Dr Portola Ave/Country Club Dr North Project Access/Frank S Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
494
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 2 Project_PM Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips Total 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
PM Peak Hour
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
495
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 2 Project_PM Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

PORTOLA/FRANK SINATRA

RESIDENTIAL

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CITY OF PALM DESERT
PREPARED BY:

John Kain, AICP
[email protected]
(949) 375-2435
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
[email protected]
(714) 585-0574
Janette Cachola
[email protected]
AUGUST 18, 2022 REVISED
MARCH 21, 2022
14677-03 TA Report.docx
499
EX. C/L FRANK SINATRA DRIVE Pool Dog Park / Retention Spa Yoga Lawn Pool PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY & R/W (TYP.) EX. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. ENTRY KIOSK EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY & LOT LINE (TYP.) EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY & LOT LINE (TYP.) EX. C/L (TYP.) PROP. SIGNAGE PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY & R/W (TYP.) EX. C/L (TYP.)

PORTOLA AVENUE
N 27°46'33" E 840.48'
N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'
N 89°52'08" E 686.08'
N 04°19'04" E 58.45'
=23°27'29" R=1937.0 ' L=793.05'
=11°29'14" R=1863.0 ' L=373.51' N 47°57'11" W 29.27' Park PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGED WITH FINAL DESIGN PLANS PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.) PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.) 24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL 24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL

PARKING NO
NO

PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING NO

PARKING NO
PARKING PROP. BUILDING 1 TYPE "C" 10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR) 30,900 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 2 TYPE "C" 10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)
30,900 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 3 TYPE "C" 10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)
30,900 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 4 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)
32,499 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 5 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 6 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,499 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 7 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 8 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 9 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 10 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,499 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 11 TYPE "D" 9,819 SF (1ST FLOOR) 9,819 SF (2ND FLOOR) 9,819 SF (3RD FLOOR) 29,457 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 12 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 13 TYPE "E" 44,361 SF (1ST FLOOR) 44,361 SF (2ND FLOOR) 44,361 SF (3RD FLOOR) 133,083 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 14 LEASING / CLUBHOUSE 17,311 SF PROP. BUILDING 15 FITNESS 2,553 SF (1ST FLR) 2,049 SF (2ND FLR) 4,602 SF (TOTAL)

32.8'

43.7'

45.1'

42.8'

31.4'

34.5' 33.2'

30.5' 20.5' 17.8' 20.5' 16.2' 18' 30' 18'

21.8'
18'
32'

11.5'

22.8'
63'
20'

32.6'

46.3'

10.9' 18'

13.9' 55.6' 309.6' 17' 20.5' 74.1' 14.9' 20.5'

45.1'

23.6'

30.6'
24'
10' 24'

29.1'

30.5' 18' 16' 20.5' 30'
30'
18'

20.4'
18'
30'
18'

20.5'

26.9'
23'
36'
23'
20'
26'
128'

20.5'
30'

20.5'

26.4'
18'
30'
18'

22.8'
24'
29'
29'
117.2'

59.4' 21.6' 21.6' 21.6'
18' 23.1'
9'
TYP.
18'

29.4'
30'

20.5'

39.8'

68.1'

19.5'

20.5'
30'

20.5'

21.9'
22'
18'
18'

15.2' 21.4' 18'
30' 81.2' 60.3' 20.5'
10'
10'
10'
18'

20.5' 30.5' 20.5'
117.5' 38.9'
144.2'
=1 °29'14" R=1863.0 ' L=373.51' PORTOLA AVENUE Parking To Be Developed if Necessary PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGED WITH FINAL DESIGN PLANS PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.) 65 PROP. BUILDING 9 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)
32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 10 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,499 SF (TOTAL) 20'
26'

19.5'

20.5'
30'

20.5'

21.9'
22'
18'
18'

15.2' 21.4' 18'
30'
10' MSA CONSULTING ,INC.

Civil E
n
gin
e ring
La
nd
S
urveying
La
n
d
s
c
a
pe
Arc
hitecture
Pla
n
ning
Enviro
n
me
ntal Services
Dry
Utility
Co rdin
ation
GIS 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com EAST NORTH SOUTH WEST CENTERLINE EASEMENT EXISTING ABBREVIATIONS (E) (N) (S) (W) C/L ESMT. EX. ACREAGE AC CURB AND GUTTER C&G ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE APN E/P EDGE OF PAVEMENT MAX. MAXIMUM BOUNDARY BNDRY M.B. MAP BOOK EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING CABLE EXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINE EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING IRRIGATION EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING SEWER EXISTING SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING WATER EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINE PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED EASEMENT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING TELEPHONE MIN. MINIMUM NUMBER PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY TYPICAL NO. PROP. P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/WSF SQUARE FEET TYP. RADIUS R STANDARD N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE P/L PROPERTY LINE R-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL) STD. UG UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD O/H OPEN SPACE / PARKS OS/PP PAGE PG. PROPOSED PARKING STALLS X CUP SITE PLAN DATA TABLE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: EXHIBIT DATE: AUGUST 17, 2022 620-400-030 & -031 SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: ADDRESS: INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. 7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A" RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503 DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY: DECEMBER 22, 2021 EXHIBIT PREPARER: ADDRESS: MSA CONSULTING, INC. 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 CONTACT: PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE: (760) 320-9811 REVISIONS NO. DATE IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252 APPLICANT / ADDRESS: CONTACT: HAYES DIETRICH, LLC 5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436 CALVIN HAYES LAND OWNER: LAND USE DESCRIPTION: EXISTING GROSS ACREAGE LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS 6.85 AC. 299,070 SF 38% TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA) 4.40 AC. 191,203 SF 24% 6.90 AC. 300,538 SF 38% GARAGES, ACCESS ROADS, HARDSCAPE & PARKING ACREAGE 18.31 AC. SF797,567 SF PERCENTAGE - - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (5, 7-9 & 12) - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (4, 6 & 10) 53,760 SF 32,499 SF 1.23 AC. 0.75 AC. - - DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22) TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING DESCRIPTION: STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11) 3 STORY PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.16 AC. 6,756 SF - (FRANK SINATRA DRIVE) PROPOSED NET ACREAGE 18.15 AC. 790,811 SF 100% PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "A" SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED 240 STALLS 515 STALLS ONSITE PARKING DATA: COUNT PARKING RATIO UNITS / SF 120 UNITS -
-- (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12) TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 394 UNITS - 788 STALLS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10) PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3) PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11) 72 UNITS - 72 UNITS - 21 UNITS - 144 STALLS 144 STALLS 42 STALLS DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13)LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 14) 3 STORY 1 STORY FITNESS BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 15) 2 STORY - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (1-3) 30,900 SF 0.71 AC. - - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (11) 9,819 SF 0.23 AC. - - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (13) 44,361 SF 1.02 AC. - - PROPOSED LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (14) 17,311 SF 0.40 AC. - - PROPOSED FITNESS BUILDING (15) 2,553 SF 0.06 AC. - UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED 157 STALLS - - SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 672 STALLS - 1.7 STALLS PER UNIT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13) 109 UNITS - 218 STALLS PUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS: FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: ZONE "X": AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN LIQUEFACTION: MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONE NOTES: 1. ELECTRIC: GAS: TELEPHONE: WATER: CABLE: SEWER: USA: THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER. 2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON THIS PROPERTY. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SPECTRUM COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 684-8123 (877) 238-0092 (800) 921-8101 (760) 398-2651 (877) 719-3278 (760) 398-2651 (800) 227-2600 SCHOOL DISTRICT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED AS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS, COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER: 06065C1595G EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008 DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED - - 65 STALLS TOTAL WITH PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED - 1.9 STALLS PER UNIT 737 STALLS PROOF OF PARKING EXHIBITSEE BELOW FOR PROOF OF PARKING EXHIBIT R:\2746\Acad\Planning\Site Plan\2746 Technical Site Plan.dwg, 8/17/2022 3:43:09 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc. 2 500
4 501
#Intersection
Existing
(2022)
EAP
(2024)
EAPC
(2024)
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
2 Portola Av. / Central Access
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr.
4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)
8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge
9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.
10 Portola Av. / South Access
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr.
6 502
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 402 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74 In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 402 DU 40 121 161 129 76 205 2,709 F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]Trip Gen TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
2 DU = Dwelling Unit
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).

Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
22 503

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 20.0 22.2 C C 2 Portola Av. / Central Access ‐‐
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 d 12.0 10.4 B B 4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 1 3 d 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 24.5 23.1 C C 5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 12.3 25.4 B C 6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N) CSS 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.5 11.8 B B 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S) CSS 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.4 11.7 B B 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1* 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 16.3 16.7 C C 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr. TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 2 1 40.7 38.2 D D 10 Portola Av. / South Access ‐‐
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr. TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.8 5.7 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound (Secs)
TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Westbound
20 504

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 20.9 24.0 C C 2 Portola Av. / Central Access CSS 1 3002 1 00 1 0 0 0 10.7 10.0 B B 3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 1 00112002d 12.5 11.5 B B 4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 1 3 d 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 28.8 25.8 C C 5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 16.4 30.0 B C 6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N) CSS 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.7 12.0 B B 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S) CSS 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.6 12.2 B B 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1* 2000010d 17.3 18.4 C C 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr. TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 2 1 41.3 39.2 D D 10 Portola Av. / South Access CSS 03002000 1 0 0 0 10.6 10.0 B B 11 Cook St. / University Park Dr. TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.9 5.8 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 3 TS = Traffic Signal;  CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]5‐1 TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2024) CONDITIONS L  =  Left;  T  =  Through;  R  =  Right;  >>  =  Free Right Turn Lane;  d  =  Defacto Right Turn Lane;  *  =  Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) # Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs)
Level of
Service2
1  =  Improvement
31 505

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 24.1 40.4 C D 2 Portola Av. / Central Access CSS 1 3002 1 00 1 0 0 0 11.5 10.8 B B 3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 1 00112002d 13.6 12.7 B B 4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 1 3 d 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 30.8 29.4 C C 5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 19.5 41.0 B D 6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N) CSS 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.7 14.6 B B 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S) CSS 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.2 13.6 B B 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1* 2000010d 20.1 24.6 C C 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr. TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 2 1 45.4 44.4 D D 10 Portola Av. / South Access CSS 03002000 1 0 0 0 11.4 10.8 B B 11 Cook St. / University Park Dr. TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16.4 11.0 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.

BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐1 TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) 1 = Improvement
# Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs)
Level of
Service2
36 506
AM PM Peak Hour Volume AM PM
2 NBL 16 52 PM 52 200 30 38
SBR 24 77 PM 77 200 NOM 3 NOM 3
EBR 36 23 AM 36 >50 34 31
3 NBR 73 46 AM 73 >75 53 70
4 EBL 79 100 PM 100 120 102 121
EBR 132 126 AM 132 230 49 62
6 SBL 5 25 PM 25 100 23 37
10 EBR 12 8 AM 12 >75 33 27
3 NOM = Nominal, average length less than 10 feet.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐2 1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Proposed length of storage.

Portola Av. / Central Access
Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr.

Portola Av. / South Access
Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.

Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
TABLE 6‐2: EAPC (2024) PROJECT TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
EAPC (2024)
Storage
Length2
(feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)1
37 507
Attachment C
Excerpts from the Transportation Impact Analysis for
Catavina Residential Project, February 2025
508

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760.476-9193 | Fax: 760.476.9198
Contact: [email protected]
JN 205082

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Catavina Residential
PREPARED FOR:

Pacific Land Consultants
2168 Dickinson Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
February 28, 2025
509
Catavina Residential ___________________________________________________________________________________ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 5 ends

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
I-10 EB Ramps to Gerald Ford Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 35,067 0.78 C 36,510 0.81 C Gerald Ford Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 29,028 0.65 C 30,712 0.68 C Hollister Drive to Portola Avenue Balanced Arterials 30,000 7,061 0.24 C 8,504 0.28 C Portola Avenue to Cook Street Balanced Arterials 30,000 10,362 0.35 C 12,286 0.41 C Frank Sinatra Drive to Desert Willow Court Balanced Arterials 30,000 17,497 0.58 C 19,181 0.64 C Desert Willow Court to Country Club Drive Balanced Arterials 30,000 17,813 0.59 C 19,256 0.64 C LOS= Level of Service
V/C= Volume to Capacity Ratio
Roadway Classifications and LOS C Capacities were taken from the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, Mobility (Chapter 4).

Portola Avenue
Existing
Roadway Segment
Existing Plus Project
Roadway Classification LOS C
Capacity
Cook Street
Frank Sinatra Drive
TABLE 1 –EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY Study Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions Improv.

AM PM AM PM Required?
Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS
1 - Cook Street & I-10 WB On Ramp Signal 22.0 – C 2.2 – A 22.1 – C 3.8 – A No 2 - Cook Street & I-10 EB On Ramp Signal 40.7 – D 33.4 – C 33.5 – C 34.6 – C No 3 - Cook Street & Gerald Ford Drive Signal 30.2 – C 34.5 – C 30.4 – C 34.7 – C No 4 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Hollister Drive TWSC 14.9 – B 15.7 – C 17.4 – C 23.3 – C No 5 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Portola Avenue Signal 34.5 – C 37.9 – D 36.3 – D 44.2 – D No 6 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Cook Street Signal 19.0 – B 25.0 – C 22.1 – C 27.5 – C No 7 - Portola Avenue & Desert Willow Court TWSC 15.2 – C 19.4 – C 30.8 – D 32.7 – D No 8 - Portola Avenue & Country Club Drive Signal 42.1 – D 39.5 – D 45.5 – D 40.9 – D No Notes:

Delay is expressed in seconds per vehicle.

LOS = Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, worst approach delay and LOS reported.

TABLE 2 – EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY 510
Catavina Residential ___________________________________________________________________________________ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 6 ends

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
I-10 EB Ramps to Gerald Ford Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 0.94 C 43,668 0.97 C 42,225 Gerald Ford Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 0.80 C 37,608 0.84 C 35,924 Hollister Drive to Portola Avenue Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.25 C 8,946 0.30 C 7,503 Portola Avenue to Cook Street Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.36 C 12,840 0.43 C 10,916 Frank Sinatra Drive to Desert Willow Court Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.69 C 22,274 0.74 C 20,590 Desert Willow Court to Country Club Drive Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.70 C 22,362 0.75 C 20,919 LOS= Level of Service
V/C= Volume to Capacity Ratio
Roadway Classifications and LOS C Capacities were taken from the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, Mobility (Chapter 4).

Portola Avenue
Roadway Segment Classification LOS C
Capacity
Opening Year 2027
Without Project
Opening Year 2027
Plus Project
Cook Street
Frank Sinatra Drive
TABLE 3 – OPENING YEAR 2027 WITHOUT PROJECT & OPENING YEAR 2027 PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY
Study Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Opening Year 2027
Without Project
Conditions
Opening Year 2027
Plus Project Conditions Improv.

Required? AM PM AM PM
Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS
1 - Cook Street & I-10 WB On Ramp Signal 24.7 – C 8.0 – A 24.9 – C 9.3 – A No 2 - Cook Street & I-10 EB On Ramp Signal 50.7 – D 48.6 – D 53.0 – D 51.6 – D No 3 - Cook Street & Gerald Ford Drive Signal 49.8 – D 51.9 – D 50.2 – D 53.9 – D No 4 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Hollister Drive TWSC 15.5 – C 16.4 – C 18.1 – C 24.8 – C No 5 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Portola Avenue Signal 35.7 – D 39.4 – D 37.6 – D 46.4 – D No 6 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Cook Street Signal 19.7 – B 29.4 – C 22.9 – C 32.0 – C No 7 - Portola Avenue & Desert Willow Court TWSC 15.7 – C 20.4 – C 30.4 – D 31.6 – D No 8 - Portola Avenue & Country Club Drive Signal 45.6 - D 43.1 – D 50.4 – D 44.9 – D No Notes:

Delay is expressed in seconds per vehicle.

LOS = Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, worst approach delay and LOS reported.

TABLE 4 – OPENING YEAR 2027 WITHOUT PROJECT AND OPENING YEAR 2027 PLUS PROJECT

ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY

1.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
To satisfy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening assessment and analysis was prepared for the Project under a separate memorandum. 511
Not to Scale
Exhibit 3
Project Site Plan
512
Catavina Residential ___________________________________________________________________________________ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 22 ends

5 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project proposes to construct 546 single family homes on vacant and undeveloped land. Regional access to the site is provided via the Interstate 10 & Cook Street interchange. Vehicular access to the site will be provided via a new full access driveway on Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue.

5.1 PROJECT FORECAST TRIP GENERATION
In order to calculate vehicle trips forecast to be generated by the proposed Project, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was used to calculate the trip generation rates as summarized in Table 9 which are based on the proposed land use quantity.

Table 10 summarizes the vehicular trip generation forecast to be generated by the project using the rates shown in Table 9. The site is vacant and undeveloped, therefore, no trip generation credit has been applied. As shown, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 4,810 daily vehicle trips with 349 AM (87 inbound and 262 outbound) peak hour trips and 490 PM (309 inbound and 181 outbound) peak hour trips.

TABLE 9 - ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use ITE Code 1 Daily Trip
Rate
AM Peak Hour Rate PM Peak Hour Rate
Total In : Out Total In : Out
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 8.81 /DU 0.64 /DU 25% : 75% 0.90 /DU 63% : 37% 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

TABLE 10 - PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Intensity Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In : Out Total In : Out
Single-Family
Detached Housing 546 DU 4,810 349 87 : 262 490 309 : 181 Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units

5.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT OF PROPOSED PROJECT Project trips were assigned onto the surrounding roadway network based on the location of the Project relative to the area transportation network such as access to freeway interchange and primary arterials.

Exhibit 10 shows the forecast trip percent distribution of Project traffic within the study area. The distribution of Project traffic assumes 15% travel north on Portola Avenue, 30% travel south via Portola Avenue, 15% travel west on Frank Sinatra Drive and 40% travel east towards Cook Street via Frank Sinatra Drive.

Exhibit 11 shows the corresponding forecast assignment of daily and AM/PM peak hour projectgenerated trips assuming the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 10. 513
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 11/7/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs_Updated Scenario 1 Project_AM Driveways.vistro
Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips Total 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
514
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 11/7/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs_Updated Scenario 1 Project_AM Driveways.vistro
Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

Zone / Gate Share % Trips Share % Trips
2: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
3: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
4: Gate 30.00 8 30.00 26
5: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
6: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
7: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
8: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
Total 100.00 28 100.00 82
Portola Springs
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
515
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Portola Avenue/Central ProjePortola Avenue/South Project Portola Ave/Frank Sinatra Dr Cook St/Frank Sinatra Dr Portola Ave/Country Club Dr North Project Access/Frank S Portola Springs
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
516
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 11/7/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs_Updated Scenario 2 Project_PM Driveways.vistro
Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips Total 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
517
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 11/7/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs_Updated Scenario 2 Project_PM Driveways.vistro
Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

Zone / Gate Share % Trips Share % Trips
2: Gate 15.00 14 15.00 8
3: Gate 15.00 14 15.00 8
4: Gate 30.00 28 30.00 18
5: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
6: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
7: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
8: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
Total 100.00 92 100.00 54
Portola Springs
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
518
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Portola Avenue/Central ProjePortola Avenue/South Project Portola Ave/Frank Sinatra Dr Cook St/Frank Sinatra Dr Portola Ave/Country Club Dr North Project Access/Frank S Portola Springs
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
519
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 520
Attachment C
SimTraffic Worksheets
521
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 124 133 118 99 156 86 73 84 281 350 308 97 Average Queue (ft) 56 59 53 45 75 40 30 42 203 172 137 30 95th Queue (ft) 106 108 101 77 134 79 65 69 317 434 361 78 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 1 0 0 20 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 1 0 0 16 1
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement B10 B10 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 37 20 203 702 675 326
Average Queue (ft) 3 1 193 458 385 133
95th Queue (ft) 32 15 236 824 750 266
Link Distance (ft) 103 103 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 55 11
Queuing Penalty (veh) 124 29
522
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 523
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 135 172 72 62 99 56 52 56 265 252 220 132 Average Queue (ft) 116 105 46 39 61 33 29 36 231 168 145 92 95th Queue (ft) 166 256 86 70 118 66 56 59 291 268 232 149 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 21 0 6 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 23 0 10 0
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 203 351 263 159
Average Queue (ft) 169 258 176 78
95th Queue (ft) 252 381 301 186
Link Distance (ft) 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 24 11
Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 29
524
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 4: North Project Access & Driveway 1/Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2 Performance by movement
6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3 Performance by movement
Total Network Performance
525
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 139 152 137 110 142 90 89 103 282 484 420 83 Average Queue (ft) 76 70 69 47 80 37 32 45 235 255 179 26 95th Queue (ft) 130 128 119 84 137 76 71 78 338 572 465 65 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1 1 0 0 36 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1 1 1 0 29 0
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement B10 B10 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 23 21 203 580 522 264
Average Queue (ft) 16 7 186 346 286 133
95th Queue (ft) 80 49 242 598 524 234
Link Distance (ft) 105 105 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 38 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 87 33
Intersection: 4: North Project Access & Driveway 1/Frank Sinatra Drive Movement NB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 64
Average Queue (ft) 30
95th Queue (ft) 56
Link Distance (ft) 114
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
526
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 3
Intersection: 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2
Movement EB NB NB NB B10 B10
Directions Served R L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 40 27 16 79 46
Average Queue (ft) 9 4 10 1 5 3
95th Queue (ft) 32 23 59 17 39 26
Link Distance (ft) 157 811 811 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3
Movement EB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 7
95th Queue (ft) 28
Link Distance (ft) 109
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 185
527
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 4: Driveway 1 & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2 Performance by movement
6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3 Performance by movement
Total Network Performance
528
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 145 276 196 83 166 154 100 81 282 380 302 170 Average Queue (ft) 121 95 64 41 87 45 38 38 206 178 151 98 95th Queue (ft) 171 234 138 69 154 106 78 65 305 326 271 161 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 23 1 0 2 0 0 0 8 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 28 1 0 2 0 1 0 13 0
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 203 403 338 190
Average Queue (ft) 176 227 156 71
95th Queue (ft) 234 384 268 164
Link Distance (ft) 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 19 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 15
Intersection: 4: Driveway 1 & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement NB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 25
95th Queue (ft) 48
Link Distance (ft) 114
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
529
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 3
Intersection: 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2
Movement EB NB NB SB B10 B10
Directions Served R L T TR T
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 55 6 13 58 23
Average Queue (ft) 5 13 0 0 4 1
95th Queue (ft) 22 43 4 5 28 11
Link Distance (ft) 157 811 105 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3
Movement EB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 5
95th Queue (ft) 23
Link Distance (ft) 109
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 90
530
531
532
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.___

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 156 UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

COMMUNITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK

SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE AND ADOPTING AN

ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND FINDING THE PROJECT

EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15183
CASE NO. PP/EA 25-0006
WHEREAS, Blue Fern West (“Applicant”), submitted a Precise Plan and Addendum to the 2022 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022120165) for the Frank Sinatra and Portola Project to construct 156 single family residential units on approximately

18.3 acres, including onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater facilities, lighting, and open space areas. The project is located South of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue on APN 620-400-030 & 620-400-031 (“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, the proposed Project establishes site layout, minimum lot sizes, circulation, recreation and open space areas; and
WHEREAS, for 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; and
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, 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 been reviewed in compliance with the 2024 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act for the City of Palm Desert (Resolution No. 2024-035), and, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and considered to address changes to the Project, based upon which it was determined that no new significant environmental impacts would occur and that no previously identified impacts would be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the approved IS/MND; and
533
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of February, open a duly noticed public hearing on the request by the Applicant regarding the above noted Project, which public hearing was continued to a date certain of February 17th; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of February continue a previously opened public hearing to consider the request by the Applicant for approval of the above noted Project request; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are consistent with an adopted General Plan for which an EIR has been certified do not require additional environmental review except to address impacts that are peculiar to the project or site and were not analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project does not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR, and that all potential impacts are either:
• Adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, or
• Mitigated through compliance with City standards, adopted mitigation measures, and conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND Addendum and supporting technical studies constitute substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the Project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; and WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report, exist to justify approval of said request:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Findings on Precise Plan. Under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section

25.72.030(E), the findings for the PP25-0006 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 534
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
3 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.

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 39307. 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 has submitted applications for a development directly abutting this west perimeter, as the same ownership, and requested to meet the allowance of twostory 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.
535
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
4 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 has been reviewed in compliance with the 2024 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the City of Palm Desert (Resolution No. 2024-035).

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and considered to address changes to the Project. Based on the Addendum, it was determined that no new significant environmental impacts would occur and that no previously identified impacts would be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the approved IS/MND. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Addendum to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to Section 15183, and the City may rely on the existing environmental record to support approval of the Project. The City shall file the appropriate Notice of Determination and/or Notice of Exemption within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA.

SECTION 4. Project Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration as identified in Exhibit A, and approves PP/EA 25-0006, subject to the conditions of approval identified in Exhibit B.

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 February 17, 2026.

LINDSAY HOLT

CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

ROSIE LUA

SECRETARY
536
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
5 I, Rosie Lua, Secretary of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2913 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 February 17, 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 February 17, 2026.

ROSIE LUA

SECRETARY

EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
537
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
6 EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP25-0006 (Precise
Plan)

1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with the approved plans and exhibits on file with the Development Services Department, except as modified by the following conditions. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance and may require review and approval by the ARC, Planning Commission, and/or City Council.

2. The Applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these Project Approvals for the Project, or the Project Approvals themselves, the Developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. The Developer, at its sole expense, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to the Developer’s approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at the Developer’s sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the Developer and cooperate in the defense. The Developer, upon such notification, shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of the City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect the information under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law.

As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any thirdparty litigation of Project approvals without the Developer’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed unless the Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement.

3. All conditions are subject to field verification. The City may withhold building or occupancy permits until compliance with applicable conditions and mitigation measures is demonstrated.

4. The Precise Plan approves site layout and development consistent with the Conceptual Site Plan dated January 30, 2026. This includes site layout, common open space provided, recreation area location/size, and lot sizes.

5. All development within this Precise Plan will need to adhere to PDMC Section

25.10.050(B).
538
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
7 6. Prior to the issuance of any building or landscaping permit an application for a Precise Plan is required for approval for architecture, landscaping, development standards, setbacks, and all other requirements identified for the Precise Plan and within the Palm Desert Municipal Code at time of application, subject to approval from the City’s Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission.

Precise Plan 25-0006 and all of the conditions herein will still remain in effect in the event a future Precise Plan approvals unless specifically specified in a resolution.

7. The Precise Plan has identified common areas for recreation, open space and retention. The Applicant shall submit a Design Review application subject to Architectural Review Commission approval for the design of these areas.

8. All future Precise Plans and development will need to adhere to the approved pad elevations as identified in the Preliminary Grading Exhibit, dated January 29, 2026.

Any revisions would need to comply with PDMC Section 27.12.045.

9. The City Engineer and Development Services Director reserve the right for any pad elevation revision within this development to require any further studies, drawings, or analysis to ensure the entirety of the project meets City requirements and is consistent with the original approval. The City Engineer and Development Services Director reserves the right for any pad elevation revision within this development to be subject to Planning Commission approval, compliant with PDMC Section

27.12.045.

10. A signed copy of all pages of this Resolution of approval shall be printed onto the first page of the construction drawings upon submittal for building permits.

11. All construction documents, including grading, building, civil, landscape, and improvement plans, shall identify the applicable Precise Plan number on the cover sheet.

12. The Precise Plan shall expire two years from the date of this approval, and shall become null and void unless a time extension is granted per PDMC Section

26.20.140, any extension legislation from the Governor or State Legislature.

13. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to the approved development standards listed in the PDMC and state and federal statutes now in force or which hereafter may be in force.

14. Prior to any construction approval, “will serve” letters shall be obtained from all affected agencies, including but not limited to the jurisdictional agencies; Coachella Valley Water District, Southern California Edison, Spectrum Cable, Frontier Telephone and Burrtec Waste and Recycling of the Desert.

15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit an address plan including the recorded street names and addresses for approval by the Development Services Director, in consultation with the Planning, Police, and Fire Departments, and shown on the Final Map.

16. The applicant shall have recorded Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as a part of the establishment of a Home Owners Association (HOA) to 539
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
8 the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer after the recordation of the Final Map. Said HOA shall be responsible for the ongoing and perpetual maintenance of all common areas and improvements established and required within the tentative map area. The CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to provisions for the ongoing maintenance of frontage streets including Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, private interior streets, recreational amenities, landscaping (including street parkways, landscape easements, parks and drainage facilities, including pipelines and retention basins), blows and and nuisance water mitigation features (e.g. fencing, landscaping irrigation, sand impoundment areas, and soil stabilization, bubblers), and the ongoing maintenance of the exterior of any project perimeter walls including graffiti removal. The CC&Rs shall have clearly labeled exhibit(s) that demonstrate maintenance obligations for all improvements within each associated phase. The CC&R’s shall be recorded subsequent to the recordation of the final map for each associated phase.

17. The CC&Rs and other homeowner association documents shall clearly state that all private onsite drainage facilities, including pipelines and basins, are the responsibility of the HOA for regular upkeep and maintenance.

18. Plant materials shall emphasize drought-tolerant species compatible with the Coachella Valley climate. Turf shall be limited to recreational or functional openspace areas only. Landscape coverage shall achieve at least 50 percent ground coverage within two years of installation.

19. The pedestrian network shall conform to the Pedestrian Accessibility Plan dated January 30, 2026, including internal sidewalk connections, and safe crossings to the recreation area. Any revision to pedestrian routes shall require Planning Division review.

20. A photometric plan demonstrating compliance with the City’s illumination levels and shielding standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. The Photometric Plan shall include the following:
a. A catalog of each type of lighting used.
b. A detail of any freestanding light that includes height, type of fixture, and decorative base.
c. The Photometric level at property line should be “0”

21. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted State Clearinghouse Number 2022120165 and amendments. All mitigation measures shall be implemented at the timing specified therein, and verification shall be provided to the Planning Division.

22. In the event that any human remains are discovered the applicant shall cease all work and contact the Riverside County Sheriff and Riverside County Coroner’s Office and work shall not resume until such time that the site has been cleared by County Coroner and/or the Palm Desert Sherrif’s Office of any criminal matter. The applicant will also be required to consult with the Agua Caliente Tribal office.

23. During grading and construction, the applicant shall implement SCAQMD Rule 402 540
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
9 and 403 dust-control measures, including daily watering, covering of haul trucks, stabilization of access points, and vehicle idling limits of 5 minutes.

24. An exception to the 100-foot setback requirement per Section 25.10.050 Development Standards (B)(14) is approved for two-story single-family detached homes. Setbacks shall be reduced to 45 feet along the west property line and 32 feet along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra. No residential structure shall exceed two stories or 35 feet in height as measured per PDMC § 25.10.050. Rooflines and massing shall maintain visual variety and avoid monotonous repetition along internal streets.

25. Wall heights, materials, and finishes shall match those shown on the approved walland-fence plan. Decorative treatments facing public rights-of-way shall include textured stucco, stone veneer, or similar high-quality finishes. Chain-link fencing is prohibited except as temporary construction security fencing. Barbed Wire, Acrylic, and Serpentine Fences are specifically prohibited.

26. The recreation/open-space area shown on the approved Precise Plan shall include a pool area, passive lawns, and shaded seating. The preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission.

Final design details shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to building permits for those facilities. The completion of these areas shall be completed prior to the completion of any residential phase within the development.

27. Prior to grading permit, the Applicant shall submit plans and obtain permits for the construction of the perimeter wall along the west, east, and north side of TTM 39307. These property walls shall meet the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code and do not require Architectural Review Commission approval. They may be approved by the Development Services Department at a ministerial level. The Applicant is responsible for conducting a precise survey of the property to verify all boundary lines.
a. Wall heights, materials, and finishes shall match those shown on the approved wall-and-fence plan. Decorative treatments facing public rightsof-way shall include textured stucco, stone veneer, or similar high-quality finishes. Chain-link fencing is prohibited except as temporary construction security fencing. Barbed Wire, Acrylic, and Serpentine Fences are specifically prohibited.
b. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall pursuant to PDMC Section 25.40.080(F)(3).
c. In the event that the survey identifies existing improvements (i.e. fences, structures, landscaping) encroaching into the subdivision from adjacent properties, the Applicant shall be responsible for addressing such conflicts.

This includes making good-faith efforts to resolve encroachments through coordination with property owners, which may involve relocation of improvements and processing of lot line adjustments. Any proposed lot line adjustment shall be submitted for review and approval of the City and must 541
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
10 be finalized prior to recordation of the Final Map.
d. Construction of the site perimeter walls (west, east and north perimeter walls) shall be completed prior to first Certificate of Occupancy issuance

28. The applicant shall prepare a final landscape plan that contains the information prescribed by the Development Services Director and is consistent with all City Design Guidelines. This includes the final landscape plan for all common areas, retention, and recreation area as identified in Condition #7.

29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit perimeter landscape plans consistent with existing landscape across Frank Sinatra Drive, Portola Avenue and consistent with the project to the west. The southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue shall include enhanced landscaping.

The conceptual plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission.

30. All frontage landscape improvements (Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue) shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association.

31. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all perimeter landscaping shall be installed.

32. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, applicant shall install monumentation sign in a location designated in the landscape plan or approved by the Director of Development Services

33. All subdivision signs shall be subject to Palm Desert Sign Code.

34. In compliance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 12.16.020, all utility extensions within the site shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified or allowed by the respective utility purveyor.

35. The Applicant shall pay all applicable City of Palm Desert fees, charges and other costs such as development impact fees as prescribed by City Ordinance. The applicant is hereby advised that the fees may change at the time they become due and payable, as permitted by applicable law.

NOTICE TO APPLICANT: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this approval and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a), and failure to timely follow this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void or annul imposition.

The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in connection with this project.

LAND DEVELOPMENT:

36. The following plans are hereby referenced: Preliminary Grading Exhibit prepared by MSA Consulting on January 29, 2026 updated by and supporting Tentative Tract 542
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
11 Map No. 39307 exhibit prepared by MSA Consulting on January 30, 2026.

37. It is assumed that easements shown on the preliminary grading exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. A current preliminary title report (30 days current) for the site shall be submitted during technical plan review. The Applicant shall secure approval from all easement holders for all grading and improvements, which are proposed over respective easements, if any, or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no effect. Proof of authorization shall be provided to the Land Development Department prior to issuance of grading permit.

38. Should such approvals or alternative actions regarding the easements not be provided and approved by the City, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise the proposed site configuration as may be necessary.

39. The Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance.

40. Prior to a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a final grading plan for the site.

No grading or other improvements shall be permitted until a final grading plan has been approved by the City Engineer. Grading plans and all grading shall conform to the approved Preliminary Grading Exhibit, the California Building Code, Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Title 27 Grading, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Palm Desert. a. The final grading plans shall show and identify all proposed onsite improvements in accordance with the approved preliminary grading exhibit. b. Design shall be in compliance with the accessibility standards in the California Building Code (current) and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) regulations. Plans shall show running and cross slopes along accessibility path from building entrances to designated parking stalls and to public pedestrian infrastructure.
c. All private improvements shall be kept within private property. Non-standard encroachments into proposed public right-of-way will not be permitted, unless clearly identified on these conditions of approval. d. The project’s Geotechnical Engineer shall sign the final grading plans.

41. Prior to grading plan approval, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate drainage fees in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 653.

42. Prior to grading plan approval, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate park fees in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 26.48.060.

43. Prior to issuance of the grading permit for the development, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate signalization fees in accordance with the City’s Resolution No. 79- 17 and 79-55.

44. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall record the related land subdivision 543
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
12 (TTM39307) final map.

45. Prior to grading permit, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for required improvements along Frank Sinatra Drive as outlined in these conditions of approval.

The plans are required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Applicant shall provide:
a. Right-of-way dedication to provide a minimum 65-foot right-of-way from street centerline to property line is required.
b. Additional right-of-way dedication at project driveways required to accommodate ADA-compliant public infrastructure within public right-ofway, if needed, shall be dedicated. c. All public infrastructure shall be within public right-of-way, prior to plan approval the Applicant shall provide proof of proposed design will meet criteria.
d. Street improvements include, but are not limited to, meandering sidewalk, landscaped parkway, and curb & gutter.
e. Improvement plans shall include Class II Bicycle Lane along the project frontage per Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines Section 5.3.
f. The project driveway at Frank Sinatra Drive shall be restricted to right-in and right-out movements. Right-in movements shall be made from a rightturn only pocket providing minimum 200-feet of vehicle storage length, or as approved by the City Engineer. The design shall be per AASHTO Green Book and Caltrans Highway Design Manual and be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
g. Separate signing and striping plans for Frank Sinatra Drive shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. h. The Applicant shall guarantee all(any) improvements within the public rightof-way for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the amount of ten percent of the surety posted for improvements.

46. Prior to grading permit, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for required improvements along Portola Avenue as outlined in these conditions of approval.

The plans are required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval.
a. Right-of-way dedication to provide minimum 63-foot right-of-way from street centerline to property line.
b. Additional right-of-way dedication at project driveways required to accommodate ADA-compliant public infrastructure within public right-ofway shall be dedicated. c. Street improvements include, but are not limited to, meandering sidewalk, landscaped parkway, and curb & gutter.
544
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
13 d. Improvement plans shall include Class II Bicycle Lane along the project frontage per Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines Section 5.3.
e. The Applicant shall restripe the existing lane configuration to accommodate a dedicated right-turn lane onto the development at the Portola Avenue driveways with a minimum of 200-feet pocket length, or as approved by the City Engineer. The design shall be per AASHTO Green Book and Caltrans Highway Design Manual and be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
f. The Applicant shall construct a median opening at the northerly Portola Avenue driveway to accommodate a northbound left-turn lane into the development, providing a minimum 200-foot storage length. The design shall account for the existing southbound left-turn movement from Portola Avenue onto Retreat Circle North and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
g. Separate signing and striping plans for Portola Avenue shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. The restriping shall provide for 2 southbound through lanes along the project frontage, and 2 southbound through lanes and a 1 right-turn lane at the project driveways. Adequate transitions shall be provided.
h. The Applicant shall guarantee all(any) improvements within the public rightof-way for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the amount of ten percent of the surety posted for improvements.

47. Prior to approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval of the City Engineer. a. LID BMPs shall be designed in accordance with the Riverside County Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development, dated June 2014. b. Any onsite and offsite BMPs shall be designed and sized for a maximum infiltration rate of 2 inches/hour as supported by the infiltration report. Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibits, may require additional approvals.

48. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a signed and notarized WQMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the City. The agreement shall include provisions for the maintenance and operation of all onsite water quality BMP facilities by the property owner.

49. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a PM10 application for review and approval. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control.

50. Prior to approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed final hydrology and hydraulics report for approval of the City Engineer. The report shall 545
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
14 encompass the entire development project area and offsite tributary areas to the site, and be prepared in compliance with all relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing the City of Palm Desert.
a. Site is required to handle the 100-year 24-hour event. Final report shall show the site is designed to meet requirement.
b. Design shall incorporate emergency overflow outlet in the event the drainage improvements exceed full capacity.
c. A maximum infiltration rate of 2 inches/hour is allowed to be used for this project per the City of Palm Desert Stormwater Infiltration Rate Policy and as determined by the City Engineer during the entitlement review of this project.

51. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such Evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed and their WDID number is depicted on the grading plan before approval.

52. Prior to grading permit it shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading shown on the preliminary site plan exhibit. Proof shall be provided to the Land Development Department prior to issuance of grading permit.

53. Prior to issuance of grading permit and in compliance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27.24, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement and post financial security guarantee for all grading work related to this project.

54. Prior to issuance of grading permit, where grading involves import or export, the Applicant shall obtain relevant permits, from the Public Works Department where the material is coming from or going to, including import/export quantities and hauling route.

55. Prior to grading permit issuance, a copy of the recorded development specific Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted for review and concurrence of maintenance responsibilities by City Engineer and City Attorney.

56. Prior to grading permit sign-off, the final grade certification shall be submitted in conformance with the approved grading plans. A licensed land surveyor shall certify the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans.

57. Prior to grading permit sign-off, the Applicant shall field verify that all BMPs are designed, constructed, and functional in accordance with the approved WQMP.

BMPs shall be inspected by City staff.

58. Upon completion of grading work, the project’s Geotechnical Engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the geotechnical report approved for this project. A licensed land surveyor shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with 546
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
15 the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans.

59. Prior to grading sign-off, the required associated improvements shall be completed or bonded in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney.

60. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Signing and Striping Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall identify all proposed on-street parking restrictions and signage, and shall restrict parking along designated sections of the street, excluding the area identified as Section A-A. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the Signing and Striping Plan has been approved and implemented.

61. The applicant shall complete all public improvements per the provisions of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
a. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy of an individual lot within the proposed subdivision, all improvements within existing public streets, Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, will be required to be constructed in conformance with current City standards.

FIRE DEPARTMENT:

62. Protection Water Supplies/Fire Flow - Minimum fire flow for the construction of all buildings is required per CFC Appendix B. Prior to building permit issuance for new construction, the applicant shall provide documentation to show a (existing/proposed) water system capable of delivering the required fire flow.

Specific design features may increase or decrease the required fire flow. a. Will Serve Letters from the responsible water purveyor are required prior to a map recordation.

63. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Hydrants - The minimum number of fire hydrants required, as well as the location and spacing of fire hydrants, shall comply with CFC Appendix C and NFPA 24. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 400 feet from all portions of the exterior of the building along an approved route on a fire apparatus access road, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of structures, standard fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1000 feet along streets for transportation hazards. Fire hydrants shall be at least 40 feet from the building it is serving. A fire hydrant shall be located within 20 to 100 feet of the fire department connection for buildings protected with a fire sprinkler system. The size and number of outlets required for the approved fire hydrants are 4” x 2 ½” x 2 ½” (super hydrant). Reference CFC as amended and NFPA 24.

64. Fire Department Access - Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of buildings, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with an approved turn around. The minimum required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road is 45 feet outside radius and 24 feet inside radius. The 547
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
16 construction of the fire apparatus access roads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 75,000 lbs. Unless otherwise approved, the grade of a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 16 percent and the cross slope shall not exceed 2.5 percent. The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall be a maximum of 6 percent grade change for 25 feet of approach/departure.

Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.
a) Fire Lane marking: Identification and marking of fire lanes, including curb details and signage shall be in compliance with Riverside County Fire Department Standards.

66. Fire Department Access Turn Around - Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with a bulb turnaround at the terminus measuring a minimum of 45 feet outside radius and 24 feet inside radius. Parallel parking around the perimeter of the bulb is acceptable provided the bulb outside turning radius is increased by 8 feet. In-lieu of a bulb, a hammer-head type turnaround is acceptable where the top of the “T” dimension is 120 feet with the stem in the center. Additional turnaround designs may be acceptable as approved by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

67. Secondary Access – Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department, dead end fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall provide independent egress/access from/to the area or as otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall be as remote as possible from the primary fire apparatus access road to reduce the possibility that both routes will be obstructed by a single emergency. Additional fire apparatus access roads based on the potential for impairment by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, anticipated magnitude of a potential incident, or other factors that could limit access may be required by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

68. Fire Department Building Construction Plan Review - Submittal of construction plans to the Fire Department will be required. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Department reviews the plans. These conditions will be based on California Fire Code, California Building Code (CBC), and related codes/standards adopted at the time of construction plan submittal. Reference CFC as amended.

69. Traffic Calming Devices - Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted for evaluation purposes, resulting in denial or approval by the Fire Code Official. Reference CFC as amended.

70. Gate Access - All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. These gates shall be provided with access to gate equipment or another method to open the gate if there is a power failure. (Manual gates shall not be locked unless a Knox padlock or Knox Box 548
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2913
17 containing the key to the lock is installed in an approved location on the approach side of the gate). A pedestrian gate, if used to provide access, shall be a minimum 3 feet wide and provided with a Knox Box/Padlock if locked. Reference CFC as amended.

71. Water Plans - If fire hydrants are required to be installed, applicant/developer shall furnish the water system fire hydrant plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. Reference CFC as amended.

72. Fire Planning Review: This planning case will also be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department’s Fire Planning Division for the cumulative impact on the Fire Department’s ability to provide an acceptable level of service. Additional requirements may be conditioned by Fire Planning to mitigate these impacts.

Questions for Fire Planning can be addressed to
[email protected].
549
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.____

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 156 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED AT THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA

AVENUE AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
CASE NO. TTM25-0005 (TTM 39307)
WHEREAS, Blue Fern West (“Applicant”) submitted a Tentative Tract Map and Addendum to the 2022 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022120165) for the Frank Sinatra and Portola Project, proposing the subdivision of approximately 18.3 acres to allow for the development of 156 single-family residential units, including onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater facilities, and open space areas. The project site is located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue, on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 620- 400-030 and 620-400-031 (“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, the proposed Project establishes site layout, minimum lot sizes, circulation, recreation and open space areas; and
WHEREAS, TTM 39307 is a 156-lot single-family subdivision proposed as a phased subdivision for final map approval; and
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, 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 been reviewed in compliance with the 2024 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act for the City of Palm Desert (Resolution No. 2024-035), and, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and considered to address changes to the Project, based upon which it was determined that no new significant environmental impacts would occur and that no previously identified impacts would be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the approved IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of February, open a duly noticed public hearing on the request by the Applicant 550
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
2 regarding the above noted Project, which public hearing was continued to a date certain of February 17; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of February continue a previously opened public hearing to consider the request by the Applicant for approval of the above noted Project request; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are consistent with an adopted General Plan for which an EIR has been certified do not require additional environmental review except to address impacts that are peculiar to the project or site and were not analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project does not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR, and that all potential impacts are either:
• Adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, or
• Mitigated through compliance with City standards, adopted mitigation measures, and conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND Addendum and supporting technical studies constitute substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the Project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; and WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report, exist to justify approval of said request:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Findings on TTM 39307 Subdivision Map. Under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.20.100(C), the findings for the TTM are the following:

1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
Project Compliance: Yes. The map has been found to be consistent with the density, lot development standards, and land uses of the Planned Residential PR-22 zoning district and the Town Center Neighborhood General Plan land use designation.

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 39307.
551
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
3 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
Project Compliance: Yes. The proposed use complies and is consistent with the Planned Residential PR-22 zoning district and the Town Center Neighborhood land use designation as outlined by the Palm Desert General Plan. The Project provides a single family housing type consistent with the intended character of the neighborhood. 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.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; Project Compliance: Yes. The site is physically suitable for the proposed 156 single family residential units, with appropriate access and zoning. Grading and drainage will be engineered per approved plans. The Project proposes public sidewalk improvements to support pedestrian connectivity and accessibility along the street frontage. The Project will been graded to ensure that all water is captured in retention basins and will not cause flooding or negative health impacts. The project will comply with all requirements of the South Coast Air Quality District and not cause any negative impacts to air quality. The Project falls within the acceptable density range and is not anticipated to generate traffic impacts or congestion.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; Project Compliance: Yes. The site is physically suitable for the proposed 156 single family residential units, consistent with the density requirements of the Planned Residential PR-22 zoning district and the Town Center Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. The Applicant has prepared technical studies that consist of Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise confirming site suitability, and the Project conforms with all applicable development standards.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and unavoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat;
Project Compliance: Yes. The design of the subdivision and improvements will not cause damage or substantially injure wildlife habitat with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended by the project biologist in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The subject property is in an urbanized area of Palm Desert and is near 552
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
4 major roadways. The 18.3-acre previously disturbed and was previously the Santa Rosa Country Club, the club house still currently remains on site. Additionally, the site is surrounded by existing residential development. With mitigation incorporated, the Project site improvements are unlikely to cause any environmental, fish, or wildlife damage.

6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems;
Project Compliance: Yes. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health problems or adverse effects with the implementation of mitigation measures explained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The site plan and grading plan have been reviewed to confirm the design provides the protection of the public’s health, safety, and general welfare. The site is adequately serviced by utilities and the grading plan was reviewed in accordance with City requirements. The Project provides setbacks from adjacent properties that meet the standards of the PR-22 zoning district. Ground-disturbing activities are conditioned to prepare plans to control fugitive dust, ground vibration, and excessive noise.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.

This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Project Compliance: Yes. It is assumed that easements shown on the Tentative Map exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. A current preliminary title report (30 days current) for the site shall be submitted during final map and technical plan review. The Applicant shall secure approval from all easement holders for all grading and improvements, which are proposed over respective easements, if any, or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no effect. Proof of authorization shall be provided to the Land Development Department prior to issuance of grading permit.

Should such approvals or alternative actions regarding the easements not be provided and approved by the City, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise the proposed site configuration as may be necessary.

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and considered to address changes to the Project. Based on the Addendum, it was determined that no new 553
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
5 significant environmental impacts would occur and that no previously identified impacts would be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the approved IS/MND. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Addendum to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project qualifies for CEQA streamlining pursuant to Section 15183, and the City may rely on the existing environmental record to support approval of the Project. The City shall file the appropriate Notice of Determination and/or Notice of Exemption within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA..

SECTION 4. Project Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves TTM 39307, subject to the conditions of approval identified in Exhibit A.

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 February 17, 2026.

LINDSAY HOLT

CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

ROSIE LUA

SECRETARY
I, Rosie Lua, Secretary of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2914 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 February 17, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:
554
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Desert, California, on February 17, 2026.

ROSIE LUA

SECRETARY

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

3. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code §§ 66410 through 66499. 58 (the " Subdivision Map Act"), and Title 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (" PDMC"). The final map shall be approved by the City Council and recorded prior to the issuance of any Building Permits.

4. The development of the property shall conform substantially with the approved exhibits contained in PP25-0006 and TTM 39307 on file in the Development Services Department, except as modified by the following conditions.

5. The Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years from the date of this approval, and shall become null and void unless a time extension is granted per PDMC Section

26.20.140 or any extension legislation from the Governor or State Legislature.

6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to the approved development standards listed in the PDMC and state and federal statutes now in force or which hereafter may be in force.

7. Prior to Final Map approval “will serve” letters shall be obtained from all affected agencies, including the jurisdictional Coachella Valley Water District/, Southern California Edison, Spectrum Cable, Frontier Telephone and Burrtec Waste and Recycling of the Desert.

8. Prior to Final Map approval, all proposed street names shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director, in consultation with the Planning, Police, and Fire Departments, and shown on the Final Map.

9. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted State Clearinghouse Number 2022120165. All mitigation measures shall be implemented at the timing specified therein, and verification shall be provided to the Planning Division.

10. The applicant shall prepare and record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as a part of the establishment of a Home Owners Association (HOA) to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer. Said HOA shall be responsible for the ongoing and perpetual maintenance of all common areas and improvements established and required within the tentative map area. The CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to provisions for the ongoing maintenance of frontage streets including Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, private interior streets, recreational amenities, landscaping (including street parkways, landscape easements, parks and 556
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
8 drainage facilities, including pipelines and retention basins), blowsand and nuisance water mitigation features (e.g. fencing, landscaping irrigation, sand impoundment areas, and soil stabilization, bubblers), and the ongoing maintenance of the exterior of any project perimeter walls including graffiti removal. The CC&Rs shall have clearly labeled exhibit(s) that demonstrate maintenance obligations. The CC&R’s shall be recorded subsequent to the recordation of the final map.

11. The CC&Rs and other homeowner association documents shall clearly state that all private onsite drainage facilities, including pipelines and basins, are the responsibility of the HOA for regular upkeep and maintenance.

12. All applicable mitigation measures and conditions adopted for Tentative Tract Maps 39307 remain in effect. These conditions supplement those approvals and govern site design, building placement, landscaping, lighting, and aesthetic treatment.

LAND DEVELOPMENT:

13. The City Engineer and Development Services Director reserve the right for any pad elevation revision within this development to require any further studies, drawings, or analysis to ensure the entirety of the project meets City requirements and is consistent with the original approval. The City Engineer and Development Services Director reserves the right for any pad elevation revision within this development to be subject to Planning Commission approval , compliant with PDMC Section 27.12.045.

14. The following plans are hereby referenced: Tentative Tract Map No. 39307 prepared by MSA Consulting and dated January 30, 2026 and supporting Preliminary Grading Exhibit prepared by MSA Consulting on January 29, 2026.

15. It is assumed that easements shown on the Tentative Tract Map exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. A current preliminary title report (30 days current) for the site shall be submitted during final map and technical plan review.

16. It is understood that the Tentative Map exhibit correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, necessary travelled ways, and drainage courses, and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the subdivider amend, revise or re-process the tentative map as may be necessary to allow a finding on the final map of substantial conformance by the City. The Final Map shall include appropriate easements for streets, public utilities, and emergency access which shall be dedicated on the Final Map. Additional right-of-way at project driveways required to accommodate ADA-compliant public infrastructure within public right-of-way shall be dedicated on the map.

17. Prior to approval of Final Map, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate drainage fees in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 653.

18. Prior to approval of Final Map, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate park fees in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 26.48.060. 557
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
9 19. Prior to approval of Final Map, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate signalization fees in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.12.030.

20. In compliance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 12.16.020, all utility extensions within the site shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified or allowed by the respective utility purveyor.

21. Prior to final map approval, a copy of the development specific Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall include, but not be limited to, frontage landscape and maintenance, access easements (fire and emergency), reciprocal access, private and/or public utility easements as may be relevant to the project, and maintenance (in perpetuity) of common spaces and BMPs associated with the development of the site.

22. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider is responsible for the construction of all offsite and onsite public improvements as outlined on these conditions of approval.

Public improvements include those associated with Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Improvements include roadway, pedestrian facilities, and public utilities. In compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, if said improvements are not constructed prior to final map recordation, the subdivider shall guarantee the completion of all improvements required to support the development, within the boundaries of the final map, by executing a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City and posting the required security.

23. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit a final grading plan. Subdivider shall guarantee the completion of all improvements required to support the development, within the boundaries of the final map, by executing a Grading Agreement with the City and posting the required security.

24. Prior to final map approval, in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the subdivider shall provide the surveyor’s certification for placement of monuments or provide monument bond in the amount and form compliant with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 27 and as approved by the City Engineer.

25. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for required improvements along Frank Sinatra Drive as outlined in these conditions of approval.

The plans are required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. a) Right-of-way dedication to provide a minimum 65-foot right-of-way from street centerline to property line is required.
b) Additional right-of-way dedication at project driveways required to accommodate ADA-compliant public infrastructure within public right-of-way, if needed, shall be dedicated.
c) All public infrastructure shall be within public right-of-way, prior to plan approval the Applicant shall provide proof of proposed design will meet criteria. 558
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
10 d) Street improvements include, but are not limited to, meandering sidewalk, landscaped parkway, and curb & gutter.
e) Improvement plans shall include Class II Bicycle Lane along the project frontage per Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines Section 5.3.
f) The project driveway at Frank Sinatra Drive shall be restricted to right-in and right-out movements. Right-in movements shall be made from a right-turn only pocket providing minimum 200-feet of vehicle storage length, or as approved by the City Engineer. The design shall be per AASHTO Green Book and Caltrans Highway Design Manual and be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
g) Separate signing and striping plans for Frank Sinatra Drive shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer.
h) The Applicant shall guarantee all(any) improvements within the public right-ofway for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the amount of ten percent of the surety posted for improvements.

26. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for required improvements along Portola Avenue as outlined in these conditions of approval. The plans are required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. a) Right-of-way dedication to provide minimum 63-foot right-of-way from street centerline to property line.
b) Additional right-of-way dedication at project driveways required to accommodate ADA-compliant public infrastructure within public right-of-way shall be dedicated.
c) Street improvements include, but are not limited to, meandering sidewalk, landscaped parkway, and curb & gutter.
d) Improvement plans shall include Class II Bicycle Lane along the project frontage per Coachella Valley AG Active Transportation Planning (CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines Section 5.3.
e) The Applicant shall restripe the existing lane configuration to accommodate a dedicated right-turn lane onto the development at the Portola Avenue driveways with a minimum of 200-feet pocket length, or as approved by the 559
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
11 City Engineer. The design shall be per AASHTO Green Book and Caltrans Highway Design Manual and be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. f) The Applicant shall construct a median opening at the northerly Portola Avenue driveway to accommodate a northbound left-turn lane into the development, providing a minimum 200-foot storage length. The design shall account for the existing southbound left-turn movement from Portola Avenue onto Retreat Circle North and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. g) Separate signing and striping plans for Portola Avenue shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. The restriping shall provide for 2 southbound through lanes along the project frontage, and 2 southbound through lanes and a 1 right-turn lane at the project driveways. Adequate transitions shall be provided.
h) The Applicant shall guarantee all(any) improvements within the public right-ofway for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the amount of ten percent of the surety posted for improvements.

27. The Applicant shall guarantee all aforementioned improvements for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the amount of ten percent of the surety posted for improvements.

28. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for the proposed internal private streets as outlined in these conditions of approval. The plans are required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. a) Street sections and improvements shall be as shown on the proposed Tentative Map exhibit. Required improvements include, but are not limited to, landscape, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and drainage infrastructure. b) For proposed streets with minimum 40-foot roadway, on-street parking will be allowed on both sides of the street unless it creates a sight-line or Fire Department difficulty.
c) On-street parking will not be allowed on streets providing 32-foot roadway and providing access to main internal roadways.
d) Parking along private driveways, corresponding to Section B-B, Section C-C, and Section D-D of the tentative map exhibit, will not be allowed. 560
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2914
12 561
562
563
564
565
566

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF PALM DESERT

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
February 17, 2026

Present: Commissioner John Collum, Vice Chair John Greenwood, Chair Lindsay Holt, Commissioner Alex Meyerhoff, Commissioner Joshua Nickerson

1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Holt on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California.

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Meyerhoff led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. NONAGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
To approve the consent calendar as presented.

Motion Carried (4 to 0)

5.a APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the Minutes of February 3, 2026.

Motion Carried

6. ACTION CALENDAR
None.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7.a CONSIDERATION OF A PRECISE PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 156 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AT THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA
AVENUE (CASE NOS. PP25-0006, EA25-0006, AND TTM 25-0005 (TTM39307))
Chair Holt and Vice Chair Greenwood disclosed for the record that each had met separately with the applicant.

Siji Fernandez, Senior Planner, narrated a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.

Docusign Envelope ID: 37B1E61F-0682-4EF1-A61E-47E15EAF6652 567
City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Minutes
February 17, 2026
2 Kim Molina, applicant representative, provided a report and responded to Commissioner inquiries.

Rob Bernheimer, attorney representing the applicant, responded to Commissioner inquiries.

David Hubbard, attorney representing the applicant, explained that the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption under Section 15183 because it is consistent with the 2016 General Plan and zoning designations analyzed in the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with no new significant or peculiar impacts identified, providing an independent basis for approval in addition to the addendum.

Chair Holt closed the public hearing there being no members of the public wishing to speak.

Motion by: Vice Chair Greenwood
Seconded by: Commissioner Nickerson

1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2913 entitled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 156 UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

COMMUNITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK

SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE AND ADOPTING AN

ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (CASE NO.

PP/EA 25-0006)” as amended to include “and find that the project also qualifies for an exemption under 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.” add a condition requiring the applicant “The Applicant shall construct a median opening at the northerly Portola Avenue driveway to accommodate a northbound left turn lane int the development, providing a minimum 200- foot storage length. The design shall account for the existing southbound left-turn movement from Portola Avenue onto Retreat Circle North and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.” and to revise and reformat Condition No. 62 to correct a clerical error.

2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2914 entitled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 156 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
AND PORTOLA AVENUE (CASE NO. TTM25-0005 (TTM 39307))” as amended to include to include “and find that the project also qualifies for an exemption under 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines,” to omit Condition No. 28 and to amend Condition No. 10 to add language as the following “and the landscape within the City right-of-way.”
Motion Carried (5 to 0)
Docusign Envelope ID: 37B1E61F-0682-4EF1-A61E-47E15EAF6652 568
City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Minutes
February 17, 2026
3 8. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & COMMENTS

8.a SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
Rosie Lua, Director of Development Services, provided an update on recent actions taken by the City Council.

8.b COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES

8.b.1 Cultural Arts Committee
Commissioner Collum provided an update on recent action taken by the Cultural Arts Committee.

8.b.2 Parks and Recreation Committee
None.

8.c PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Meyerhoff requested that the Planning Commission be invited to the library groundbreaking ceremony.

Vice-Chair Greenwood, with support from Commissioner Nickerson, requested consideration of objective design standards for single-family residential development.

8.d CITY STAFF
None.

8.e ATTENDANCE REPORT
Report provided; no action taken on this item.

9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:11 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Michelle Nance, Assistant City Clerk
Recording Secretary
_________________________
Rosie Lua, Director of Development Services
Staff Liaison
Approved by the Commission on 03/03/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: 37B1E61F-0682-4EF1-A61E-47E15EAF6652 569
570

CITY OF PALM DESERT

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260
Phone (760) 776-6483 [email protected]

APPEAL APPLICATION HANDOUT
Appellant Name:

Phone:

Mailing Address: Fax:

City: State: Zip: Email:

Appealing Decision of the:

Date of Decision: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Appealing Case Number: _________________________ Appellant/Representative Signature: By signing this application, I certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand that the City might not approve what I am applying for and/or might require conditions of approval. Print Name: Signature: Date:

Reason for Appeal (Attach additional sheets if necessary): ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 571
572
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
March 23, 2026
By Email ([email protected],
[email protected])
Evan Trubee, Mayor
Joe Pradetto, Mayor Pro Tem
Karina Quintanilla, Councilmember
Gina Nestande, Councilmember
Jan Harnik, Councilmember
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Appeal re Portola Springs Residential Project (PP25-0006; EA25-0006, and TTM 25-0005 (TTM 39307)
Dear Mayor Trubee, Mayor Pro Tem Pradetto, and Honorable City Councilmembers:

This firm represents Blue Fern Development (“Blue Fern”), applicant on the Portola Springs residential development project (the “Project”), which was approved by the City of Palm Desert’s Planning Commission on February 17, 2026. The Project is now the subject of an administrative appeal to the City Council. The appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed its appeal on February 27, 2026, claiming the following:

The Addendum prepared for this Project is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act because the Project is not within the scope of the 2022 MND and there is new information available since certification of the 2022 MND indicating new significant impacts and/or the availability of new mitigation measures. Furthermore, the addendum fails to consider the Project’s cumulative impacts with the recently approved Catavina Residential Project.

SAFER also objects to the Planning Commission’s determination that the Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption and/or streamlining under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. According to SAFER, the section 15183 exemption is unavailing “because the Project has peculiar impacts, including cumulative impacts, that are not mitigated by uniformly applied standards and policies.” SAFER did not, and has not, explained why it believes the Project falls outside the scope of the 2022 MND. Nor has SAFER identified any “new” information showing that the Project will create significant impacts not covered in the 2022 MND, including cumulative impacts. Finally, SAFER 573
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.

Palm Desert City Council
March 23, 2026

Page 2 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
has provided no evidence to support any of its claims, including its assertion that that Project will cause significant and “peculiar” impacts that disqualify it from CEQA streamlining under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Even if one sets aside SAFER’s failure to meet its evidentiary burden, a close review of the administrative record establishes that there is no merit to SAFER’s appeal. Specifically, when the City Council approved the original 394-unit residential project at the Portola Avenue site in January 2023, and adopted that project’s MND, no party – not SAFER or anyone else – filed suit to challenge those actions. The time to bring such a lawsuit has long since passed, as the statute of limitations ran on February 22, 2023. Blue Fern, as the successor-in-interest to the original applicant, Hayes Dietrich, LLC (“Hayes Dietrich”), could simply build the original 394-unit multifamily project and SAFER would have no legal ability to stop it.

Blue Fern, however, intends to build a less intense project, one that consists of 156 single-family homes on the same 18.3-acre footprint, resulting in reduced environmental impacts.1 Because the
proposed Project was consistent with, but less intense than, the previously-approved Hayes Dietrich project, City staff determined it could lawfully be approved with a CEQA addendum to the 2022 MND.

Under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum is appropriate where, as here, “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Section 15162(a) provides that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is necessary unless substantial evidence in the record shows one of the following:
“(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
“(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or “(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
1 For example, the proposed Portola Springs Project will generate 1,471 average daily traffic trips, compared to the original Hayes Dietrich project, which would have generated 2,709 average daily trips. 574
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.

Palm Desert City Council
March 23, 2026

Page 3 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
“(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
“(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
“(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or
“(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
The CEQA Guidelines quoted above establish a clear doctrine in favor of finality once a lead agency has approved a project and certified an EIR or adopted a negative declaration. (Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949-950, citing Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1074.) In such situations – which is precisely what we have here – the legislature and the California Resource Agency determined that no further CEQA review would be required or allowed unless the previously-approved project, prior to implementation, changed so dramatically as to implicate significant impacts not studied or contemplated in the earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist., supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 944, 951-59.) In short, the CEQA Guidelines create a very high bar for anyone who wishes to challenge revisions to a project that was previously approved and is otherwise immune from legal review.

SAFER has not cleared that bar.

There is no evidence in the record – and SAFER has provided none – showing that the revised Project (Portola Springs) is so different from the approved Hayes Dietrich project that it will create significant effects not studied or anticipated in the original MND approved by the City Council in January 2023. That is, SAFER has not shown that any of the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15162, quoted above, have been met. As a result, SAFER has not earned the legal right to reopen the CEQA process and demand a new EIR for the Portola Springs project.

SAFER attempts to deflect from its evidentiary shortcomings by claiming that the Addendum is deficient because it “fails to consider the Project’s cumulative impacts with the recently approved 575
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.

Palm Desert City Council
March 23, 2026

Page 4 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Catavina Residential Project.” (SAFER Appeal Notice.) SAFER, however, is factually mistaken.

When the City approved the MND for the Hayes Dietrich project, it did so after taking into account the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts, including those related to buildout of property in the Town Center Neighborhood section of the City. This would include the Catavina property located directly to the west of the project site.

Furthermore, the City’s 2016 General Plan Update EIR (the “GPU EIR”) assumed full build-out of both the Catavina property and the subject site, at densities considerably greater than either project – Catavina or Portola Springs – is now proposing. Thus, the GPU EIR already analyzed the cumulative impacts of both projects (indeed, of all projects consistent with the General Plan), made determinations as to the significance of those cumulative impacts, and adopted feasible mitigation measures where necessary. (See 2016 GPU DEIR, pp. 2-1—2-2, and Table 2-1.) Both the Catavina MND and the current Addendum for the Portola Springs project are entitled to rely on the findings of the GPU EIR unless SAFER can show that conditions have changed so radically that those findings are no longer valid. SAFER has made no such showing. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152(d)).

Then there is the matter of CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which affords streamlining benefits to projects like Portola Springs that are consistent with the land use and zoning designations assigned to the project site in the applicable general plan – here, the 2016 GPU. On February 17, 2026, the Planning Commission determined that the Project qualified for a section 15183 exemption because it complies with (a) the site’s Town Center Neighborhood general plan designation and (b) the site’s Planned Residential zoning designation and density limit (7 to 22 du/ac).

SAFER, however, argues that the Project will create significant and peculiar impacts not considered in the 2016 GPU EIR, claiming that such impacts make the Project ineligible for streamlining under section 15183. But SAFER has not identified any such impacts nor provided evidence they exist. The administrative record, on the other hand, provides substantial evidence that the Project not only complies with the site’s assigned land use and zoning designations, but will result in impacts less severe than those assumed and analyzed in the 2016 GPU EIR.

Accordingly, the Project qualifies for section 15183 streamlining, just as the Planning Commission determined. (See Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, 536-538 [Section 15183 exemption will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record]; see also Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 910 [confirms that substantial evidence test applies to section 15183 determinations.] For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should reject SAFER’s appeal, uphold the findings of the Planning Commission, adopt the Addendum, and affirm the Commission’s approval of the Portola Springs project.

576
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.

Palm Desert City Council
March 23, 2026

Page 5 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions about the content of this letter, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
cc: Rosie Lua, Director of Development Services,
City of Palm Desert
Kim Molina, Pacific Land Consultants
Shane Bouchard, Blue Fern Development
Tiffany Michou, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Amada Daams, Best Best & Krieger LLP
577
578

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. APPEAL PP/EA25-0006, TTM 39307

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

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 39307 FOR A 156

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF A CEQA

ADDENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND EXEMPTION UNDER 15183 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, City of Palm Desert, California; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 620-400-030 and 620-400-031 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, has filed an appeal regarding the approval of Precise Plan (PP25-0006), Environmental Assessment (EA25-0006), and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 39307) for the Portola Springs Residential project. The proposed project includes the development of 156 single-family residential (SFR) lots on approximately 18 acres, with on-site circulation, utilities, stormwater facilities, and open space areas. PP/EA25-0006 was approved by the Planning Commission via PC Resolution No. 2913, and TTM 39307 was approved by the Planning Commission via PC Resolution No. 2914, both on February 17, 2026, at a duly noted public hearing.

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 April 9, 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 Senate Bill 707, this meeting will 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/government/meetings.

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
March 27, 2026 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
579
580
Appendix A
Updated Geotechnical Report, March 2025
581
582

UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

CATAVINA EAST PROJECT
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS (APNS) 620-400-030 AND -031

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE

PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

BLUE FERN WEST, LLC
18300 REDMOND WAY, SUITE 120
REDMOND, WASHINGTON 98052

PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878
PROJECT NO. 4186-CR MARCH 4, 2025
583
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
March 4, 2025
Project No. 4186-CR
Blue Fern West, LLC
18300 Redmond Way, Suite 120
Redmond, Washington 98052
Attention: Mr. Shane Bouchard
Subject: Updated Geotechnical Report
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
Catavina East Project
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 620-400-030 and -031
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. Bouchard:

GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Updated Geotechnical Report for the subject project located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.

This report presents a discussion of GeoTek’s evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundation design and construction of the proposed site improvements.

Based on the results of this evaluation, development of the property appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report and in future reports are incorporated into design and construction. 584
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 2
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call GeoTek.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/26
Principal Geologist
Bruce A. Hick
GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/26
Geotechnical Engineer
Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist
Richard Durot
Staff Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email
https://geotekusa.sharepoint.com/teams/Corona_Branch/Shared Documents/Projects/GeoTek Inc/4100/4186/GEO/Working Files/Updated Geotechnical Report/4186CR UPD CATAVINA EAST 03-04-2025.docx 585
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................. 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................... 1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................1

2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................................................2

2.3 PRIOR REPORT REVIEW..........................................................................................................................................................3

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................ 8

3.1 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................................8

3.2 PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................................................9

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS........................................................................................... 9

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................................................................................9

4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS.........................................................................................................................................................10

4.2.1 Dune Sand Deposits...................................................................................................................................................................10

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ..........................................................................................................................10

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY..................................................................................................................................................11

4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters.......................................................................................................................................................11

4.4.2 Liquefaction & Seismic Settlements.......................................................................................................................................12

4.4.3 Other Seismic Hazards..............................................................................................................................................................13

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 13

5.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................................13

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................................13

5.2.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................13

5.2.2 Site Clearing and Demolition ...................................................................................................................................................13

5.2.3 Site Preparation............................................................................................................................................................................14

5.2.4 Transition Lots and Cut Lots ....................................................................................................................................................14

5.2.5 Engineered Fill...............................................................................................................................................................................15

5.2.6 Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................15

5.2.7 Trench Excavations and Backfill .............................................................................................................................................15

5.2.8 Shrinkage and Bulking................................................................................................................................................................16

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................16

5.3.1 Foundation and Building Slab Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................16

5.3.2 Moisture and Vapor Retarding System.................................................................................................................................18

5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations....................................................................................................................19

5.3.4 Foundation Setbacks...................................................................................................................................................................19

5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................................20

5.4.1 General Design Criteria..............................................................................................................................................................20

5.4.2 Restrained Retaining Walls.......................................................................................................................................................21

5.4.3 Soil Corrosivity...............................................................................................................................................................................21

5.4.4 Soil Sulfate Content.....................................................................................................................................................................21

5.4.5 Import Soils....................................................................................................................................................................................22

5.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................................................................22

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................................................................23

5.6.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................23 586
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.6.2 Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................................................................................................23

5.6.3 Concrete Performance................................................................................................................................................................24

5.7 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................25

5.7.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ..................................................................................................................................25

5.7.2 Drainage .........................................................................................................................................................................................25

5.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................26

6. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 26

7. SELECTED REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 27

ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography Map
Figure 2 – Project Plan
Appendix A – Test Location Maps; Logs of Exploratory Borings; and Laboratory Test Results (Earth Systems Southwest, 2006, 2015)
Appendix B – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
587
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 1

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical engineering and geologic conditions of the subject site as related to the currently proposed development. Services provided for this study included the following:
▪ Research and review of available geologic and geotechnical data and general information pertinent to the site,
▪ Review of geotechnical reports previously prepared for this site by Earth Systems Southwest (2004, 2006, 2015a, 2015b and 2015c),
▪ Performance of a site reconnaissance,
▪ Review and evaluation of site seismicity and geologic hazards, and ▪ Compilation of this Updated Geotechnical Report which presents GeoTek’s findings and a general summary of pertinent geotechnical conditions relevant for site development.

The intent of this report is to aid in the evaluation of the site for future development from a geotechnical perspective. The professional opinions and geotechnical information contained in this report will likely need to be updated based on review of final site development plans.

These should be provided to GeoTek for review when available.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Catavina East project site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). Based on review of aerial images and a recent site reconnaissance, the site currently consists of vacant land.

The roughly triangular-shaped site is currently comprised of two (2) parcels of land (Riverside County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 620-400-030 and -031) which encompasses a total size of approximately 17.6 acres. The site can generally be accessed from Portola Avenue to 588
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 2
the east and south, a paved improved street. Frank Sinatra Drive, also a paved improved street, provides access from the northern boundary of the site.

The site and site area can be considered as having relatively flat terrain, with surface drainage directed to the south-southeast. Based on USGS topographic maps for the area and other documents reviewed for this report, the elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 255 above msl (mean sea level) to 285 feet above msl.

The site is in an area largely characterized by residential development, golf courses and vacant land. The site is bound by Frank Sinatra Drive, followed by residential development to the north. Portola Avenue, followed by the Desert Willow Golf Resort Maintenance Department, a stormwater basin, residential development and the Desert Willow Golf Resort, bound the site to the east and south. Power lines and a utility easement, followed by an abandoned golf course (“Catavina West” project), bound the site to the west.

2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based upon review of the Conceptual Site Plan: B, Catavina East, Palm Desert, California, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and provided by Blue Fern West, LLC, site improvements will consist of a residential development with a mix of alley-load and cluster single-family residences (see Figure 2, Project Plan). Other project improvements are anticipated to include various park spaces throughout with a large park space near the southern end of the development, stormwater disposal facilities, underground utilities, interior street/parking/drive areas and various landscape/hardscape improvements.

It is anticipated that the residential structures will be one- to two-stories in height.

Conventional shallow (isolated spread and continuous wall) foundations and slabs-on-grade are anticipated. Maximum anticipated structural loads of 2.5 kips per lineal foot for continuous foundations and 50 kips for columns are anticipated. Sewage disposal will be by a public sewer.

Design cuts and fills of up to approximately five (5) feet are anticipated to be required to bring the building pads to design grades; however, grading plans were not provided to GeoTek for this review. Cut and fill slopes over five (5) feet in height are not anticipated due to the relatively flat site terrain. Perimeter/interior retaining walls are anticipated.

As site development planning progresses and plans become available, the plans should be provided to GeoTek for review and comment. Additional engineering analyses may be necessary in order to provide specific earthwork recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for actual site development.
589
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 3

2.3 PRIOR REPORT REVIEW
GeoTek’s review of the reports provided to this firm (Earth Systems Southwest, 2004, 2006, 2015a, 2015b and 2015c) is summarized below.

Geotechnical Engineering Report (Earth Systems Southwest, 2004) Earth Systems Southwest (ESS) issued a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subject project on August 5, 2004.

ESS provided an update to this report in 2015 (ESS, 2015a). See report review below (Geotechnical Engineering Report (Earth Systems Southwest, 2015a).

Report of Infiltration Testing for Proposed Retention Basin (Earth Systems Southwest, 2006)
ESS issued a Report of Infiltration Testing which included the subject project on June 13, 2006.

ESS stated that two (2) infiltration testing locations were selected in the vicinity of the proposed retention basins in the southern portion of the site (see Appendix A). ESS stated that the site soils consisted predominantly of poorly graded sand with some silt (SP-SM soil type per the Unified Soil Classification System).

ESS stated the infiltration tests were performed within the exploratory borings drilled to depths of approximately 10 and 41.5 feet below the existing ground surface. ESS further stated a 3 ¼-inch diameter perforated pipe was set in each borehole and the annulus was backfilled with ¾-inch sized gravel.

ESS stated the testing was completed according to the guidelines of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Method for Unsaturated Soils above Groundwater.

The results were reported as 1.6 inches per hour for I-1A (North) and as 0.1 inches per hour for I-2A (South), with a depth to bottom of hole of 8 and 40 feet, respectively. ESS stated that no factors of safety were applied to the rates reported.

ESS stated that test I-1A should be used for the rate at the bottom of the basin, while test I-2A would apply to a drywell extended to a maximum depth of 40 feet. 590
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 4
Geotechnical Engineering Report (Earth Systems Southwest, 2015a) ESS issued a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subject project on February 6, 2015. The report also included an additional adjacent property to the west of the subject site which is not a part of the current project site area (“Catavina West”).

ESS stated that their report updated and superseded a previous ESS 2004 report prepared for the subject property.

ESS stated that the proposed development consisted of residential housing.

ESS stated that the scope of work for their report included 14 exploratory borings total, including six (6) exploratory borings from the previous 2004 report conducted within the current project site, and the remaining eight (8) exploratory borings were conducted on the adjacent property to the west (see Appendix A). ESS stated exploration of the near surface soils was conducted by means of drilling and sampling exploratory borings to depths ranging from approximately 14 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface along with laboratory testing of soil samples obtained, including in-situ moisture and density, consolidation, sieve analysis, moisture-density relationship and soil chemical analysis.

ESS stated that the near surface deposits consisted of poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM soil types) that were generally in a loose to medium dense condition. ESS further stated that the site lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area.

ESS reported that free groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings to a maximum depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the ground surface. ESS reports that the historic groundwater depth for the site is below 50 feet and therefore the site liquefaction potential is very low.

ESS reported that the site soils have a low potential for hydrocollapse as carbonate cementation was not observed and due to the generally high relative density of the site soils.

ESS reported that based on visual observations, the site soils were observed to be granular. As such, ESS stated that the Expansion Index (EI) of the on-site soils is probably in the “Very Low” (0-20) category and samples should be tested during grading to confirm these findings.

ESS reported that corrosivity testing was performed on four (4) samples of the near surface site soils. ESS stated that based on the results the site soils can be considered as “mildly corrosive” 591
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 5
to “moderately corrosive” to buried metals and possess a “negligible” exposure to sulfate attack for concrete.

ESS reported that based on analysis, the potential for seismically induced dry settlement of the soils above the groundwater table for the full soil column height (50 feet) was estimated to be

0.5 inch in Boring B-1. ESS further reported that due to the general uniformity of the soils encountered, seismic settlement was expected to occur on an aerial basis and as such the calculated differential settlement was estimated to be ½ of the total settlement of the total soil column (0.25 inch).

ESS provided seismic design parameters for the project using a Site Class “D” and the 2013 California Building Code (CBC).

ESS recommended that in areas to be filled, the existing soils within the building pad and foundation area (including any canopies or overhangs) should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grade, finished grade, or a minimum of two (2) feet below the bottom of the footing, whichever was deeper. The overexcavation should extend for five (5) feet beyond the outer edge of the exterior footings and include any covered walkway area, patio areas, etc. The bottoms of the overexcavations should have an undisturbed in-place density of at least 85% relative compaction. The bottom of the approved overexcavation should then be scarified and moisture conditioned for an additional depth of three (3) feet to near optimum moisture content.

ESS recommended that for auxiliary structures such as fence or retaining walls, trash enclosures, etc., the foundation subgrade should be prepared similar to the building pad recommendations; however, the lateral extent of the overexcavation need extend to only two (2) feet beyond the exterior face of the footing.

ESS stated that for street, drive and permanent parking areas, the subgrade should be overexcavated, scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction for a depth of at least 18 inches below existing grade or finish grade, whichever was deeper, with the upper one foot of subgrade compacted soil to at least 95% relative compaction.

ESS estimated the shrinkage limits to range from -5 (bulking) to 10% shrinkage with a mean shrinkage of seven (7) percent.

ESS provided preliminary conventional shallow foundation design recommendations for the project structures.
592
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 6
ESS stated that the estimated total static settlement for project foundations should be less than 3/4-inch, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended. Differential static settlement between exterior and interior bearing members was estimated to be less than 1/2 inch. Total “dry sand” differential settlement was estimated to be on the order of about 1/4 inch. Collapse differential settlement was estimated to be on the order of 0.3 inches. As such, considering both static and seismic settlement applied over a typical distance of 40 feet, ESS recommended the structural engineer design for an angular distortion of 1:480 (1 inch in 40 feet). Settlement will not result in the complete loss of soil support but would be manifested as a tilting of the structure over the specified distance.

ESS provided retaining wall recommendations for the project along with preliminary pavement design recommendations.

Report of Infiltration Testing (Earth Systems Southwest, 2015b) ESS issued a Report of Infiltration Testing which included the subject project on August 21, 2015.

The report also included an additional adjacent property to the west of the subject site which is not a part of the current project site area (“Catavina West”).

ESS stated that two (2) infiltration testing locations were selected in the vicinity of the proposed retention basins (see Appendix A). It should be noted that one (1) of the test locations (I-2) is outside the limits of the current project site. The other test location (I-1) is within the project and appears to be in the general vicinity of a park area based on the provided conceptual site plan. ESS stated that the site soils consisted predominantly of poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM soil type).

ESS stated that the excavations were dug by a rubber tire backhoe to a depth of about five (5) feet below existing grades. The field infiltration testing was performed utilized the double-ring infiltrometer method.

ESS stated that the tests were performed for a period of at least three (3) hours and stopped due to consistent readings and sandy soils.

The results were reported as 17.6 inches per hour for the test located within the project site area (I-1) and as 14.9 inches per hour for the test located outside of the project site area (I-2).

ESS stated that no factors of safety were applied to the rates reported. 593
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 7
ESS stated that due to the shallow testing performed for the evaluation, it was recommended that design level testing or construction observations be performed to confirm the soil types once the basins have been excavated.

Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report (Earth Systems Southwest, 2015c) ESS issued a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report which included the subject project on December 28, 2015. The report also included an additional adjacent property to the west of the subject site which is not a part of the current project site area (“Catavina West”).

ESS stated it was their understanding that the project was based upon unapproved drawings that did not provide definite depths of utilities.

ESS stated the purpose of their report was to present findings and recommendations for soil classification in the pipe embedment zone, proctor density of the native material in the pipe embedment zone and bearing capacity of the soil at the proposed elevation of the trench bottom based on information required by the Coachella Valley Water District.

ESS scope of work included one (1) hand auger boring to a depth of approximately seven (7) feet below the existing ground surface along with laboratory testing of soil samples obtained, including in-situ moisture and density, sand equivalent and shear testing. The boring was located near the western border of the site (see Appendix A).

ESS stated their descriptions of subsurface site conditions were based off the December field explorations and previous field explorations conducted in 2004 and in 2015.

ESS stated that field explorations indicate that site soils consisted of Class II (according to ASTM 2321), poorly graded fine to medium grained sand with silt (SP-SM).

ESS stated that in previous 2004 and 2015 reports, a Class II soil type (SP-SM) was also found, indicating that the soils sieve tests were very consistent.

ESS stated the borings are located in an aeolian type environment and past fill area; therefore, it was possible for variations in the types and depths of soil formations to occur over a relatively short distance; therefore, during excavation and prior to backfill, embedment materials should be verified.
594
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 8
ESS stated since the project was found to have generally consistent soils, they performed a 99% confidence interval at 3 depths (2.5 ft, 6.5 ft, and 9 ft) to estimate embedment zone parameters for water lines.

ESS stated since the project was found to have generally consistent soils, they performed a 99% confidence interval at 2 depths (6.5 ft, and 8.5 ft,) to estimate embedment zone parameters for sewer lines.

ESS stated that migration of native fines into the aggregate base will probably occur if a flow of water exists between native and aggregate base material; therefore, imported soil material should be tested for this migration criteria or non-tested import material should be wrapped with geofabric membrane when used as back fill next to the native SP-SM native soils.

ESS stated that based on visual observations, the site soils were observed to be granular and did not have a significant clay content. ESS stated that the Expansion Index (EI) of the on-site soils is anticipated to be “Very Low” (0-20).

ESS provided recommendations conforming to the Coachella Valley Water District requirements for trench zones including foundation, bedding, pipe embedment backfill materials and backfill materials above embedment.

ESS also provided recommendations for trench safety, minimum cover, material classifications and thrust block bearing capacity.

ESS stated that the site is within a “susceptible” subsidence zone; however, the site was not within an area of known damaging subsidence and to better resist lateral soil extension, recommended piping have a provision for stress relief to allow for a lateral or longitudinal movement of ½ inch.

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION
Field explorations were previously performed at this site by ESS (2004, 2006, 2015a, 2015b and 2015c) as discussed in Section 2.3 of this report. No additional subsurface exploration was performed by GeoTek for this Updated Geotechnical report. 595
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 9
The approximate locations of the prior excavations for the project (ESS) are presented on the Test Location Maps prepared by ESS which are included in Appendix A of this report. The logs of the exploratory borings for the explorations performed by ESS (2015a and 2015c) are also included in Appendix A of this report. The subsurface exploration program conducted by ESS (2004) occurred on July 13, 2004, and included the excavation of six (6) geotechnical test borings to depths between 14 and 31.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Two infiltration tests at depths of ten (10) and 41 feet bgs were performed on June 13, 2006 (ESS, 2006). On January 21, 2015 (ESS, 2015a), the excavation of eight (8) geotechnical test borings to depths between 26.5 and 51.5 feet bgs. An infiltration test pit at a depth of five (5) feet bgs was performed on July 24, 2015 (ESS, 2015b). On December 22, 2015 (ESS, 2015c), the excavation of one (1) hand auger boring to a depth of approximately seven (7) feet bgs.

3.2 PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was previously performed by ESS (2004, 2015a and 2015c) for soil samples collected from the site during their prior field exploration programs. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture and density, gradation analysis, consolidation, maximum density test, direct shear, R-value and soil corrosion potential (i.e., chloride content, sulfate content, minimum resistivity and pH tests). The results of the prior laboratory testing are presented in Appendix A of this report.

No additional laboratory testing was performed by GeoTek for this Updated Geotechnical report.

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is situated in the Colorado Desert geomorphic province, which is a lowlying barren desert basin that is partially below sea level. The most dominant feature within this province is the Salton Trough, which is a large northwest-trending alluvial filled structural block that extends about 180 miles in length.

The Coachella Valley forms the northern portion of the Salton Trough and is underlain by a series of sediments that range from Miocene to Recent/Holocene in age. The Salton Trough is bordered by the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the 596
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 10
southwest. The San Andreas Fault system extends through the Coachella Valley in a general northwest-southeast trend.

More specific to the subject property, the site is located in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by dune sand deposits (Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2008).

4.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered by ESS (2015a) is presented in the following section. Based on the site reconnaissance, previous exploratory excavations and review of published geologic maps, the site is locally underlain by dune sand deposits.

4.2.1 Dune Sand Deposits
Dune sand deposits were reported to have been encountered by ESS (2015a, 2015b and 2015c) throughout the site and depths of the borings. These materials typically consisted of a poorly graded sand with silt (SM-SP soil type based on the Unified Soil Classification System).

ESS reported that based on visual observations, the site soils were observed to be granular. As such, ESS stated that the Expansion Index of the site soils was probably in the “Very Low” (0-20) category. Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface materials have a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent (ASTM D 4327). The soluble sulfate content test results are provided in Appendix A of this report.

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER

4.3.1 Surface Water
If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site will likely be the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from immediately surrounding properties. Overall site area drainage is to the south, as directed by site topography.

Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.

4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater/seepage was not encountered by ESS during the subsurface exploration (ESS, 2015a). Groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 50 feet below the ground surface. It is possible that seepage may be encountered following periods of heavy and/or prolonged precipitation.
597
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 11
Based on review of the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library, it is estimated that historical groundwater levels are greater than 50 feet below the ground surface.

Based on the results of the field exploration, review of site area geomorphology and geology, groundwater/seepage will likely not be encountered during excavation and grading operations.

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. The site is not located within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone; nor is the site mapped within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction or earthquake induced landslides.

Riverside County has designated the site as “not in a fault zone” and “not in a fault line”.

4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.7710 Latitude and -116.3724 West Longitude. Based on the relatively dense soil conditions encountered at the site, a Site Class “D” is considered appropriate for this project. Site spectral accelerations (Ss and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, was determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format.

The following seismic design parameters, based on the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)/ASCE 7-16/2022 CBC, are presented below:
598
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 12

SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.668g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.689g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.7**
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS

1.668g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1

1.757g*
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS

1.112g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 1 second, SD1

1.172g*
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.800g
Seismic Design Category D
*ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8 requires a ground motion hazard analysis for structures on Site Class “D” for values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2g. However, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required where the values of SM1 and SD1 are increased by 50%. The SM1 and SD1 values shown above already include the 50% increase, so that exception can be obtained. **ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8 indicates that the value of Fv should only be used for calculation of Ts, determination of Seismic Design Category, linear interpolation for intermediate values of S1, and when taking the exceptions under Items 1 and 2 of Section 11.4.8 for the calculation of SD1
Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism.

4.4.2 Liquefaction & Seismic Settlements
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquakeinduced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.

The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. 599
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 13
Riverside County has designated the site as having a “moderate” liquefaction potential (RCIT Map My County). Due to the presence of relatively dense dune sand deposits and lack of shallow groundwater, it is GeoTek’s opinion that the potential for liquefaction and seismic induced (“dry sand”) settlement at this site is very low.

4.4.3 Other Seismic Hazards
The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is considered to be remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water. Due to the relatively flat site topography and relatively low liquefaction hazard potential, the potential for seismicinduced lateral displacements (i.e., “lateral spread”) and slope instability hazards are considered negligible.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL
Development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The specific recommendations for site development provided in this report will need to be further evaluated when development plans are provided for review. The following sections present general recommendations. More specific geotechnical recommendations for site development can be provided when more finalized site development plans are available for review.

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS

5.2.1 General
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Palm Desert, the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and recommendations contained in this report. The General Grading Guidelines included in Appendix B outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix B.

5.2.2 Site Clearing and Demolition
In areas of planned grading and improvements, the locations of existing utilities should be determined. Existing utilities should be relocated or abandoned. The site should be cleared of existing structures, pavements, slabs, trees (including root balls), vegetation and other 600
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 14
deleterious materials. Debris should be properly disposed of off-site. Voids resulting from site clearing should be backfilled with engineered fill.

5.2.3 Site Preparation
Any loose/disturbed soil or undocumented fill encountered along with the upper three (3) feet of native soils should be removed beneath the planned building footprints to expose competent native sand dune deposits and for all areas to receive new fill and/or surface improvements. Competent materials are considered to be undisturbed sand dune deposits with a minimum of 85 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The lateral extent of the recommended overexcavation should extend at least five (5) feet beyond the building limits, where obtainable.

Deeper removals may be required, the actual depths of removals should be determined by a GeoTek representative during site grading based on actual soil conditions encountered and other factors. Remedial excavations should be taken to a relatively level bottom across individual building pads. The bottoms of all remedial excavations should be reviewed and approved by a GeoTek representative.

Following review and approval of removal bottoms, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of about twelve (12) inches, be moisture conditioned to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content (ASTM D1557) and then be compacted to at least 90% of the soil’s maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

Testing by GeoTek is recommended to document that the engineered fill soils have been properly moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended.

For proposed pavement and hardscape construction, existing ground surfaces should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the existing ground surface or 12 inches below the proposed subgrade elevations, whichever is deeper, and replaced as engineered fill.

5.2.4 Transition Lots and Cut Lots
Rough grading may create cut, cut/fill transition and shallow fill lots. All lots should be overexcavated such that all building pads are underlain by at least three (3) feet of compacted engineered fill and overexcavation bottoms should slope to drain to the adjacent street or suitable direction so ponding of water is not likely to occur. The lateral extent of this recommendation should include the area extending at least five (5) feet beyond the building limits.
601
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 15
Transition (i.e., cut/fill) lots should be overexcavated a minimum of three (3) feet below proposed grades or to a depth of 1/3 the maximum fill thickness.

All cut lots should be overexcavated to a depth of three (3) feet below proposed grade and replaced with engineered fill.

5.2.5 Engineered Fill
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris, oversized materials and other deleterious material.

The undercut areas should be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill materials that are placed and compacted in general accordance with minimum project standards. Engineered fill should be placed in six-inch to eight-inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures.

5.2.6 Excavation Characteristics
Excavations in the dune sand deposits should be readily accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment in good operating condition.

5.2.7 Trench Excavations and Backfill
Temporary trench excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at 1.5:1 inclinations for short durations during construction and where cuts do not exceed 15 feet in height. It is anticipated that temporary cuts to a maximum height of four (4) feet can be excavated vertically.

Trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations.

Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures). Under-slab trenches should also be compacted to project specifications. Where applicable, based on jurisdictional requirements, the top 12 inches of backfill below subgrade for road pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. On-site materials may not be suitable for use as bedding material but should be suitable as backfill provided particles larger than six (6) inches are removed.
602
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 16
Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. Ponding or jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If backfill soils have dried out, they should be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches.

5.2.8 Shrinkage and Bulking
For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of about 10 to 15 percent may be considered for removal of any undocumented fill and dune sand deposits that are removed and replaced as engineered fill.

A subsidence loss of up to approximately 0.1 foot is estimated for the site.

Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction.

Losses due to site demolition and utility line removal/relocation are not included in the above estimates and should be accounted for in earthwork balancing calculations.

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Foundation and Building Slab Design Criteria
Foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the 2022 CBC, are presented below for the proposed residential structures associated with the project. The graded site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” (0-20) expansion index (EI) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Typical design criteria for the site based upon a “Very Low” expansion index are tabulated below. These are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project structural engineer.

The conventional foundation elements for the proposed buildings should bear entirely in engineered fill soils or competent dune sand deposits (not a combination of the two).

Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC.

Expansion index and soluble sulfate testing of the soils should be performed during construction to evaluate the as-graded conditions. Final recommendations should be based upon the actual as-graded soils conditions.

A summary of the foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table:
603
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 17

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
Design Parameter “Very Low” Expansion Index
Minimum Foundation Depth (inches below lowest
adjacent grade) 12 – One- and two-stories
Minimum Foundation Width (Inches)* 12 – One- and two-stories Minimum Slab Thickness (actual)1
4” – Actual
Minimum Slab Reinforcing
6” x 6” – W1.4 x W1.4 welded wire fabric placed
in middle of slab or No. 3 bars at 24-inch centers
placed in middle of slab
Minimum Footing Reinforcement Two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one near the bottom
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum of 100% of the optimum moisture
content to a depth of at least 12 inches prior to
placing concrete
*Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2022 CBC should be complied with.

5.3.1.1 An allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous and perimeter footings 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and pad footings 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. This bearing capacity contains a minimum factor of safety of three (3). Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g., seismic and wind loads).

5.3.1.2 Based on the recommended site grading, it is estimated a total static settlement of less than one (1) inch will occur. A differential static settlement of about ½ inch over a 40- foot span is also estimated.

5.3.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 350 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. Passive pressure and frictional resistance can be combined without reduction. The upper one (1) foot of soil should be ignored in the passive pressure calculations unless the surface is covered with pavement.

5.3.1.4 A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, should be utilized across large entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings.
604
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 18

5.3.1.5 Where the building slab is to be designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be considered for design methodology.

5.3.1.6 GeoTek recommends that control joints in slabs be placed in two directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer.

5.3.2 Moisture and Vapor Retarding System

5.3.2.1 A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2022 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane.

It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g., stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed atop the underlying aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC specifies a 6-mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent.

Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions.

Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e. thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level.
605
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 19
Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarder systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, ASTM, CALGreen and California Building Code requirements and guidelines.

GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the building be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations relative to the slab moisture and vapor retarder systems and for migration of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures, as deemed appropriate.

In addition, the recommendations in this report and GeoTek’s services in general are not intended to address mold prevention; since GeoTek, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in the area of mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.

5.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations
▪ To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab-on-grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge. ▪ Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement.

5.3.4 Foundation Setbacks
Where applicable, the following setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements:
▪ The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least seven (7) feet and need not exceed 40 feet.
606
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 20
▪ The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem.

This applies to the existing retaining walls along the perimeter if they are to remain. ▪ The bottom of any proposed foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation.

5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.4.1 General Design Criteria
Retaining wall foundations embedded a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill or competent dune sand deposits should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g., seismic and wind loads).

The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 350 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. Passive pressure and frictional resistance can be combined without reduction.

An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in the table below for specific slope gradients of retained materials.

Surface Slope of Retained Materials
(H:V)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (PCF)
Select Backfill*
Level 35
2:1 50
*Select backfill should consist of approved materials with an expansion index less than or equal to 20.

For walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet, an incremental seismic pressure should be included into the wall design. Where needed, it is recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of 15 psf be included in the wall design to account for seismic loading conditions.

This pressure may be applied as a standard triangular distribution. 607
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 21

5.4.2 Restrained Retaining Walls
Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or reentrant corners should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf (select backfill), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or as otherwise determined by the structural engineer.

5.4.2.1 Other Design Considerations
▪ Retaining and garden wall foundation elements should be designed in accordance with building code setback requirements. A minimum horizontal setback distance of five (5) feet as measured from the bottom outside edge of the footing to a sloped face is recommended.
▪ Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.
▪ No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders.
▪ The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts and backfill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. ▪ Positive separations should be provided in garden walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet.

5.4.3 Soil Corrosivity
The soil resistivity at the site was tested in the laboratory on several soil samples collected during the previous field investigation conducted (ESS, 2004 and 2015a). The results of the testing indicate that the on-site soils are considered “mildly corrosive” to “corrosive” (3,704 to 10,638 ohm-cm) (Roberge, 2000) to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. Recommendations for protection of buried ferrous metal should be provided by a corrosion engineer. Additional corrosion testing should be performed at the time of site grading to assess the corrosion potential of the as-graded soils.

5.4.4 Soil Sulfate Content
The sulfate content at the site was determined in the laboratory on several soil samples collected during the previous field investigation conducted (ESS, 2004 and 2015a). The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate result is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “negligible” as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19. Based on the test results and 608
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 22
Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure.

5.4.5 Import Soils
Import soils should have expansion characteristics similar to the on-site soils. GeoTek also recommends that the proposed import soils be tested for expansion and sulfate potential.

GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed.

5.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Pavement design for proposed on-site pavement (i.e., local, collector and secondary roadways) improvements was conducted per Caltrans Highway Design Manual guidelines for flexible pavements. An R-value of 50 was used for the roadway subgrade soils based upon the previous test results. For preliminary pavement design, assumed Traffic Indexes (TI) of 5.0 and 7.0 were used. Final pavement design should be based on R-value testing of the graded street subgrades and the assigned TI values. Based on the assumptions noted, the following preliminary pavement design recommendations are provided.

TI
Thickness of Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Thickness of
Aggregate Base
(inches)

5.0 (General Local) 3.0 4.0

7.0 (Collector/Enhanced
Local)

4.0 6.0
The TIs used in the pavement design are typically considered reasonable values for the proposed street/parking/drive areas and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving may result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for design were selected based upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study.

The recommended pavement sections provided are intended as a minimum guideline and final selection of pavement cross section parameters should be made by the project civil engineer, based upon the local laws and ordinates, expected subgrade and pavement response, and desired level of conservatism. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. Final pavement design should be checked 609
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 23
by testing of soils exposed at subgrade (the upper 12 inches) after final grading has been completed.

Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to current Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39 and 26-1.02, respectively. As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section 203-6 of the current Standard Specifications for Public Work (Green Book). Crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base should conform to Section 200-

2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Green Book, respectively. Pavement base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 laboratory maximum dry density (modified proctor).

All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement, rolling and compaction of asphaltic concrete, should be performed in accordance with the City of Palm Desert specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern.

Deleterious material, excessive wet or dry pockets, oversized rock fragments, and other unsuitable yielding materials encountered during grading should be removed. Once existing compacted fills are brought to the proposed pavement subgrade elevations, the subgrade should be proof rolled in order to check for a uniform and unyielding surface. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned at or near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). If loose or yielding materials are encountered during construction, additional evaluation of these areas should be carried out by GeoTek. All pavement section changes should be properly transitioned.

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

5.6.1 General
Concrete construction should follow the 2022 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, GeoTek could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction.

5.6.2 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete slabs and sidewalks should be designed using a four-inch minimum thickness.

No specific reinforcement is required from a geotechnical perspective. However, some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in industrial construction. 610
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 24
Sidewalks and driveways may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria would apply, if more restrictive than the recommendations presented in this report.

Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc. should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 100% of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for soils having a “Very Low” expansion index.

All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be performed in accordance with the City of Palm Desert specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City inspector, if necessary.

5.6.3 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are “hairline” to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.

One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two directions and located a distance approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness.

Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered “non-structural” components. It is suggested that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structures themselves. 611
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 25

5.7 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.7.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate.

Overwatering should be avoided. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decrease the long-term performance of slopes.

It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundations. This type of landscaping should be avoided. Planters within 30 feet of the buildings should be above ground and underlain by a concrete slab. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may be warranted and advisable. GeoTek could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are made available.

5.7.2 Drainage
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings and floor-slabs. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements.

Roof gutters should be installed that will direct the collected water at least 20 feet from the buildings.
612
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 26
It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season.

5.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
GeoTek recommends that site grading, specifications, retaining wall/shoring plans and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. Additional recommendations may be necessary based on these reviews. GeoTek also recommends that representatives from this firm be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek’s representative perform at least the following duties:
▪ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable materials.
▪ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. ▪ Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing when necessary.
▪ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. ▪ Test the fill for field density and relative compaction. ▪ Test the near-surface soils to verify proper moisture content. ▪ Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials.

If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. GeoTek recommends that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.

6. LIMITATIONS
This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and the client’s needs, GeoTek’s proposal (Proposal No.

P-0103625-CR) dated January 14, 2025, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region.
613
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 27
The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others.

Since GeoTek’s recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, GeoTek’s conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.

7. SELECTED REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15.

Bowles, J. E., 1977, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Second Edition.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2022 “California Building Code,” 2 volumes.

California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, “Geologic Map of California.”
____, 1998, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,” International Conference of Building Officials. ____, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
____, 2010, “Geologic Map of California”.
614
BLUE FERN WEST, LLC Project No. 4186-CR
Updated Geotechnical Report March 4, 2025
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Page 28
Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2008, Geologic Map of the Thousand Palms & Lost Horse Mountain 15-minute quadrangles, Riverside County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-372, 1:62,500.

Earth Systems Southwest, 2004, “Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed 21-Acre Residential Development, Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, California,” File No. 09750-01, dated August 5. _____, 2006, “Report of Infiltration Testing for Proposed Retention Basin, Tract 33719, Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, California,” File No. 09750-01, dated June 13.
_____, 2015a, “Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Catavina Residential Development, Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California,” File No. 12329-01, dated February 6. _____, 2015b, “Report of Infiltration Testing, Proposed Catavina Residential Development, Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California,” File No. 12329-01, dated August 21. _____, 2015c, “Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report, Catavina Residential Development, Water and Sewer Trenching, Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California,” File No. 12329-01, dated December

28. GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.

MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025, “Conceptual Site Plan : B, Catavina East, Palm Desert, CA,” dated February 12.

Riverside County GIS website, “Map My County” (Map My County v10 (countyofriverside.us).

Roberge, P. R., 2005, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering,” 2nd Edition.

SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org).

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition. 615
Figure 1
Site Location
and
Topography
Map
Blue Fern West, LLC
Catavina East Project
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 620-400-030 and -031
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Project No. 4186-CR

APPROXIMATE

SITE AREA
Modified from the Myoma, La Quinta, Rancho Mirage,
Cathedral City 2021 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Sheets
616
Figure 2
Boring Location
Map
Figure 2
Project Plan
Blue Fern Development
Catavina East Project
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APNs) 620-400-030 and-031
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Project No. 4186-CR Adapted from MSA Consulting, Inc., “Conceptual Site Plan : B, Catavina East, Palm Desert, CA”, dated February 12, 2025 617

APPENDIX A
TEST LOCATION MAPS (ESS, 2006, 2015); LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS; AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (ESS, 2015)
Catavina East Project
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Project No. 4186-CR
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
618
TEST LOCATION MAP (ESS, 2006)
619

TEST LOCATION MAP; LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS; AND
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (ESS, 2015a)
621
Plate 2
Test Location Map
Approximate Scale: 1" = 350’
0 350’ 700’
LEGEND
Approximate Boring Locations
Earth Systems
Southwest
B-8
B-2
B-6
B-3
B-4
B-5
File No.: 12329-01
Proposed Catavina Residential Development
Southwest Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue Palm Desert, Riverside County, California

Previous Boring Locations
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
Source: Google Earth satellite image dated 11/26/2012.
(Completed January 2015)
(Completed July 2004)
2/06/2015
Frank Sinatra
o
t
l
v
n
P
r
o
a
A
e
ue
o
t
l
v
n
P
r
o
a A
e
ue
622
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Boring completed at 31.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
medium dense
micas present
very fine to fine grained, no retention of sample
dense
very dry, no retention
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
loose, dry, mostly fine to medium grained
SP-SM
4,4,5
4,6,9
7,10,11
7,11,11
11,14,15
8,17,21
15,22,30
B-1 (2004)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
July 13, 2004
8" Hollow Stem Auger
CME 55 w/rope & cathead
Dirk Wiggins
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
623
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Boring completed at 16.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
loose to medium dense
medium dense
no retention
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
loose, dry, mostly fine to medium grained
SP-SM
4,4,5
3,4,6
6,8,12
9,13,18
B-2 (2004)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
July 13, 2004
8" Hollow Stem Auger
CME 55 w/rope & cathead
Dirk Wiggins
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
624
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Boring completed at 21.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
loose to medium dense, dry, mostly fine to medium grained SP-SM
4,5,6
3,5,6
3,8,10
4,8,11
5,9,11
B-3 (2004)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
July 13, 2004
8" Hollow Stem Auger
CME 55 w/rope & cathead
Dirk Wiggins
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
625
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Boring completed at 19.0 feet
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
very loose to loose, dry, mostly fine to medium grained SP-SM
3,4,4
4,6,8
5,8,13
5,11,12
B-4 (2004)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
July 13, 2004
8" Hollow Stem Auger
CME 55 w/rope & cathead
Dirk Wiggins
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
626
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Boring completed at 26.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
damp, some organic matter
medium dense to dense
dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
medium dense, dry to damp, mostly fine to medium grained SP-SM
5,6,8
4,6,6
6,7,7
7,10,11
12,19,27
17,30,45
B-5 (2004)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
July 13, 2004
8" Hollow Stem Auger
CME 55 w/rope & cathead
Dirk Wiggins
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
627
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Boring completed at 14.0 feet
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
loose to medium dense, damp
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
loose, dry, mostly fine to medium grained
SP-SM
3,4,5
3,4,5
8,9,12
B-6 (2004)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
July 13, 2004
8" Hollow Stem Auger
CME 55 w/rope & cathead
Dirk Wiggins
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
628
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Total depth at 51-1/2 feet
Backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
loose, void 0-7 feet, root zone
loose
medium dense
dense
very dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
moist, fine to medium grained sand
5 5
3 4
3 3
4 4
3 97
101
104
101
107
110
110
111
110
SP-SM
2,2,3
4,5,8
5,10,15
5,9,10
7,11,16
11,11,14
11,17,21
10,21,28
9,20,34
9,22,30
15,26,42
14,24,44
16,33,50
B-1 (2015)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
January 21, 2015
6" Hollow Stem Auger w/Autohammer
Mobile B-61
R. Reed
79-811 Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
629
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Total depth at 26-1/2 feet
Backfilled with native cuttings
No groundwater encountered
dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand
4 4
4 4
4 114
110
107
110
106
SP-SM
10,18,22
8,15,17
5,9,13
5,11,13
6,13,17
8,14,17
10,15,18
10,21,26
B-2 (2015)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
January 21, 2015
6" Hollow Stem Auger w/Autohammer
Mobile B-61
R. Reed
79-811 Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA, 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
630
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Drilling Date:

Drill Type:

Logged By:

Bulk
SPT
MOD Calif.

Description of Units
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Dry
Graphic Trend
Earth Systems
Southwest
Count Density
Total depth at 26-1/2 feet
Backfilled with cuttings
No groundwater encountered
medium dense
dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown,
moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand
4 5
5 5
5 102
104
106
108
107
SP-SM
5,6,10
7,10,13
6,12,16
6,11,15
5,10,14
6,13,16
4,9,16
8,15,27
B-3 (2015)
Catavina Residential Development, Palm Desert, CA
12329-01
See Plate 2
January 21, 2015
6" Hollow Stem Auger w/Autohammer
Mobile B-61
R. Reed
79-811 Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA, 92203
Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315
631
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Boring No:

Project Name
Project Number:

Boring Location:

Drilling Method:

Depth (Ft.)
Sample
Type Penetration
Resistance
(Blows/6")
Symbol
USCS
Dry Density

Page 1 of 1 ends

Palm Desert City CouncilMay 28, 2026

Palm Desert City Council
May 28, 2026