Planning commission hears conceptual plan for 200-unit Ventana Apartments on Jefferson Street

The Indio City Planning Commission received a project consultation on July 9 for Ventana Apartments, a proposed 200‑unit multifamily development submitted by La Paloma Homes Inc. The project site is roughly 10 acres east of Jefferson Street and north of Dunbar Drive; staff identified parcels referenced in the presentation and said the site is designated Connected Neighborhood High in the General Plan 2040 and zoned CN‑20.

The consultation was informational; no action was requested. Nicolas Huidron, assistant planner with the community development department, told commissioners the proposal is generally consistent with the General Plan alignment and that the project will require discretionary planning review, demonstration of consistency with the Unified Development Code and an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Huidron also noted the site lies inside the Bermuda Dunes Airport compatibility plan area and will need coordination with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission to show consistency before a formal application is accepted.

Benjamin Egan, a civil engineer for the applicant, presented the conceptual site plan and elevations. Egan said the applicant proposes two‑story apartment buildings only (no three‑story buildings despite the code allowance), a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units, a community building with locker rooms and a pool, internal pedestrian pathways, and on‑site garages. He said the design team will either retain or relocate an existing retention basin in the northwest corner to avoid disrupting the city’s drainage pattern and that the project team is working on utility availability, including a substation that would affect power delivery.

Commissioners and attendees pressed the applicant on parking, shade and open space. The project as proposed would require 440 parking spaces under the city’s current code calculation (the staff presentation cited the project’s required tally as 440 spaces for 200 units). Egan said the layout is designed to meet minimum code requirements and that the team would add additional spaces if the site permits. He also said the garages shown are single‑car garages and that the developer would consider modifying the product so more units have garages if market conditions and the two‑story constraint allow it.

Several commissioners and members of the public emphasized shade and cooling measures for parking and common areas, urging generous tree planting and heat‑island reduction strategies; a staff member noted the local code requires that 50% of nonlandscaped areas achieve shading and that tree shading must meet the code within 15 years of planting. Commissioners also asked about walkability and outdoor recreation; the applicant said the conceptual plan includes a pool, courts that will accommodate tennis and pickleball, and trails. The applicant said it is considering an on‑site manager while units are rented and that, in the long term, the project would be processed as a condominium map so units could be sold.

Questions about access and easements arose. The applicant identified a roughly 30‑foot pipeline and access easement along the south edge of the site; the team said it does not intend to relocate the pipeline, would landscape that corridor where allowed by the easement holder and could explore an emergency access surface if required. The applicant said primary access is planned from Jefferson, with two entry drives to provide fire access and circulation; a gated entrance is possible but not required and may be infeasible if stacking requirements push gates too far back from the arterial.

The applicant affirmed it will meet code minimums for solar and electric vehicle (EV) charger readiness and said it will add more EV spaces if the market indicates higher demand than code requires. Maximum building heights were described as about 24–26 feet with two stories; the applicant said it intentionally limited height to reduce impacts on adjacent single‑family neighborhoods.

Staff reiterated that the consultation is preliminary and that a formal application will require submittal of a complete environmental analysis and review for consistency with the Unified Development Code and General Plan. Commissioners asked the applicant to return with more detailed landscaping, rear‑elevation articulation, parking distribution by unit type, and updated site plans showing how retention, easement constraints and utility routing will be handled.

The commission took no formal vote on the project during the consultation.